boredsilly

I was reading the Rise of Legends: Rise of Nations review over at gamespot and came upon this quote: "High expectations are a curse. While everybody envies developers who make games as great as Rise of Nations, nobody envies them when sequel time comes around. And you can really see why with Rise of Legends. Big Huge Games' follow-up to its instant classic from 2003 is a pretty good RTS, but it is also an awfully familiar one that doesn't bring anything new to the table aside from some snazzy new graphics, a few rule tweaks, and a quirky storyline with three oddball races."

Huh? So the Legends isn't (as) good because its more of the same classic gameplay you liked in the first game? I see this complaint A LOT in game reviews and I was wondering if you all subscribe to the same belief. That being that a game has to innovate and change with each new offering in order to stay fresh making it good.

What is wrong with a game coming out with the equivalent of new levels? Why isn't that ever enough? I like new stuff in games, but I'm also perfectly cool with a game giving me the solid gameplay I enjoy with new levels to explore. The best example of this (because the games really did not change at all) is the 16 bit Sonic series. This game did not really change the basic gameplay at all, save for a dash move and introducing Tails (but even these had a very limited impact), but instead just gave fans new areas to run fast through.

Don't get me wrong, I do like new things in games when it works, but I hate the fact that some developers may feel the need to have to force something new in when it doesn't fit. I don't play it, but didn't Madden introduce something called QB cone vision that took away a lot of the fun from the game?

Anyway, thoughts on this? Have any franchises or series you enjoy been hurt by new features added to the game (maybe: Mario Kart Double Dash vs Mario Kart 64, the early platform friendly Ratchet and Clank vs the shooter happy later games)?

If you're a fan of Dynasty Warriors or the Tony Hawk games I pretty much know were you stand on the issue .

Mikael79

I do think it's important for all games to innovate in order to maintain it's important in the gaming world. Look at Grand Theft Auto. I remember playing it on the Playstation, and while it was very fun - it was missing a lot of the expansive fun that we're seeing with the newer titles. Another great example is Resident Evil 4. Both of these franchises would have missed out on a lot by simply staying with the tried and true.

Even the genre in which new titles come out year after year - sports - still has to give gamers more and more each year, aside from just the standard roster updates. Look at the PC gaming world - anyone can create more levels and such. It's up to game developers to create, expand, innovate and explore.

PixyJunket

I tend to like a little something more in sequels rather than just the same old. If something doesn't work out, at least they tried. Having three to five entries in a series in as many years with little change is kind of annoying to me. Take the 2D Castlevania games, the DS version, while bad ass, really did nothing for me as I'd played that game FOUR TIMES before it. Mega Man on the NES? By the fourth game I could never really "get into" the series as I had initially.

Josh H

Yeah, they need to add a little more or they get stale.

I think Nintendo has done a great job of this with their main Mario, Zelda and Metroid series. They've managed to put out quite a few games that remain true to the forumlas, but also add enough new that I've never came close to getting sick of them.

Timing is also another thing, it's easier to overlook repetition if they games are coming out 3-5 years apart than say a yearly series as the experience isn't as fresh as your mind.

So something like Mega Man, Prince of Persia, Sly Cooper etc. gets a little old as the games didn't add much new and came out every year.

The Bus

They don't need to innovate, they only need to update and fix what is broken. But, if they innovate and do it correctly, they will stay popular for a long time.

Good franchises like Mario, Zelda, Blizzard games all carry core ideas from title to title.

tpc

If It feels exactly the same, and plays exactly the same, I see no reason to upgrade a lot of the time. I don't feel like a sequel has to totally reinvent the wheel... but give me a reason to spend money... otherwise, I feel like I'm wasting money.

darkside

[Checks Castlevania in 2D compared to the more innovative 3D versions]

NO!

Drexl

I think it depends on the type of game it is and how often the games come out.

If it's the type of game where a new version is meant to completely replace the one before it, like a sports game, then yes, they do have to innovate. It would be a waste to just get something like a roster update (I know some people think that's all it is anyway).

If it's a level- or adventure-based game, they don't really have to be that innovative as long as they don't overdo it as to how often they come out. With those games, they're meant to coexist with the older games, so it's okay not to reinvent the wheel. No one says, "I've got the new Zelda game, so I don't need this old one anymore." I would have loved to have had a Mario platformer sequel for the N64 and one for GameCube, even if they would have been just new levels, but if they came out every year they would get stale.

DRG

This misses the original point. You're picking two titles that had run their course, playwise. There wasn't really much left to do with either franchise at their then-current states. (Although I still was loving the classic RE games when RE4 came out, even though I like the overhaul as well)

But what about franchises that haven't run their course? Should they change just for the sake of changing? It reminds me of reviews of new Dance Dance Revolution titles, where they complain that the new release is just the same old game with all new songs. That's the point! Fans of DDR like the gameplay just fine, but they get tired of playing the same songs over and over, so Konami will come out with a new title with all new songs. But that's apparently a bad thing according to some reviews I've read.

It's one thing to revamp a stale title, but there's also the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" factor. A lot of the time a new story in a new setting is all that is needed.

fujishig

Depends on the franchise. For most sports games, I'd be happy if they just updated graphics and rosters (and fix bugs like collision detection, etc.) on the more polished games... I don't need cone vision, and I don't really need to sell hot dogs at a stadium... though I guess there are people who are drawn to that. For something like, say, a Karaoke Revolution or Guitar Hero, i think it's perfectly natural to add songs and maybe tweak a few things here and there. In fact, Karaoke Revolution was supposed to have a bunch of upgrade packs, but they found out that people don't buy upgrades, so they just released new songs as new games.

I agree with the Castlevania example... the move to 3d hurt it, and people still love the PS1 version best. If a 2d console sequel came out with updated graphics, fans would eat it up. Look at freaking Super Mario Bros., where the latest DS game takes the best of the 2d franchises... even though Mario 64 was excellent, there's still something about 2d mario. Personally, i thought Metroid Prime was a worthy successor, but others still prefer the old 2d ones. And Street Fighter didn't gracefully move into the 3d era.

I've said it before... take X-Men Legends 2, change the characters into the Avengers or whatever, change the levels and enemies, and I'd snap it up. I'm not advocating shovelware by any means, and I wouldn't want to see 40 different versions of the same game (hello Megaman and Dynasty Warriors), but I don't mind the developers spending more time on content sometimes, than some innovative new engine or feature.

chess

It depends on the game and how often you plan to release a new one.

The game: Take the OP's example of Sonic. The sonic platformers were remarkable, but let's be honest...by the third one, they'd taken Sonic's one trick about as far as it could go...and that one trick didn't transfer into the 3D realm very well at all. Or how about Crash Bandicoot (a damn near perfect platformer) which had 2 very good but very similar sequels. In contrast, Mario has transitioned gracefully between 6 seperate platformers (all quite different) on the NES, SNES, N64, and GC. And they didn't just give Mario new abilities, they integrated those abilities into the game in a way that made them worthwhile...from the tail in Mario 3 to the cape in Mario World to the camera in Mario 64 to the water pack in Mario Sunshine. Nintendo innovated and integrated, while maintaining the core feel of the game. Same with Zelda.

Too many releases: Look at Resident Evil, which waited wayyyyy too long to Innovate, putting out 5 (?) games with a long antiquated control scheme and nothing to add other than a new setting. RE4 was a worthy successor to the original game, and I have pretty much zero interest in the ones between 1 and 4. Same for Tomb Raider, another brilliant game ridden into the ground. In contrast, Zelda and Metroid have a release or maybe two every generation, and they generally don't release a new one until they have something interesting to add (Metroid Prime being a possible exception...they seem to be milking that one).

This probably comes off as a Nintendo fanboy post, and that's probably fair, but they seem to know more than anyone else what it takes to maintain the integrity of a franchise while also adding something completely new.

tenaciousdave

Innovation is what makes a franchise great. It's also key to starting the franchise to begin with.

You don't generally see clones of other games turn into a great series.

I would put GTA into the least innovative series group, with the exception of GTA 3. There's hardly any gameplay differences between GTA 3 and Vice City. San Andreas's changes were basically a bunch of mini games.

PixyJunket

See, I was going to post almost exactly this, citing Sonic and many Sony franchises (Crash, Spyro, Ratchet & Clank, Sly, etc.) as examples of beating something good into the ground by frequent repeats with little new. I was hoping (and almost assuming) others would bring it up as I wanted to avoid the easy labeling of me with a Nintendo "bias."

Even if a sequel offers little new, a little time goes a long way in my opinion; both in any improvements made to the next iteration of a game and in easing the sense of being hammered with a series. If Bungie had made a new Halo every year to you think it would have been as good as Halo 2 ended up being? Would anybody have cared about the Halo 5 trailer at this year's E3 in that sense either?

Josh H

Exactly.

Innovation doesn't mean a total overhaul. Just put enough new stuff in to make it somewhat fresh.

And taking time to come up with ideas and really improve the game helps. Yearly franchises tend to get stale fast as they don't have time to add enough new stuff. And honestly, for most games I don't want to play a sequel every year.

For example, I've had Ratchet and Clank 2 on the shelf for over a year as I just haven't had the desire to get to it after playing the first one. I'll get to it eventually.

Nintendo tends to do both of these well as I said above. Their great at putting new twists in their games to keep them fresh enough, and at not whoring out their main franchises with a new sequel every year (not counting spinoffs in this, just main franchise games).

fujishig

I guess we have to define "innovative" then. I thought we were talking about taking a game into a whole new direction or control schema or look, rather than adding features to an already successful game structure. For example, I don't think Super Mario World was "innovative" but rather SMB3 with added features and fun. Halo 2 was not highly innovative, but added online play, dual wielding weapons, and some other features. They made good games better, while still maintaining the same core gameplay.

Nintendo has a good track record with innovations... the Zelda series being perhaps the best example (though some hated Wind Waker). They also had some miscues (Starfox, for example, which I think should've stuck with being a shooter, and adding a "jet/water" pack to Mario didn't please many. That addition actually changed the core gameplay a lot, because of how often it was used).

Josh H

Yeah. I don't think a hit series should change that much very often...if ever.

That's what new franchises should be created for, or spinoffs involving established characters.

People love the franchise games for a reason, so you don't want to change them too much, but rather just add in enough new to give people a reason to shell out the money for the sequel rather than just firing up the old game that's been gathering dust on their shelf.

Michael Corvin

I think time is a big factor. I would say one iteration of a game per generation unless the sequel offers up some innovation or at least trying something fresh. At least if you have that time gap between generations the game seems fresh even if it is only a graphical enhancement.

An example that came to mind for me is Burnout. Each new one offered up something different to warrant a purchase. Not always good(crash multipliers) but at least they tried to keep it fresh despite putting out 3 sequels in one generation.

If nothing else, changing things makes people clamor for the old school. Look at Bomberman. They have tried everything under the sun in that franchise. Usually failed. So much so, everyone longs for a true SNES type sequel, which is coming soon on 360. . People will eat it up. I would say the franchise would have died long ago if all they put out were SNES-like sequels every 18 months. Same goes for Worms & Lemmings. They've tried new stuff to the extent that people want something like the original.

Josh H

NES style sequel? They have screens in the newest EGM (zelda on cover) and it has a realistic, futuristic, sci fi look.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/acti...reenindex.html

boredsilly

The Metal Gear games do this for the most part. There is tweaking, but it's essentially the same gameplay from Solid to Snake Eater. New characters, stories, settings, and such sometimes are enough.

And Starfox is a great example of totally screwing up a game. SF 64 was perfect in my eyes, so why do I need to be on foot again? Let me fly damn it! Driver did this same thing. They changed what was so fantastic about the first game by adding un-needed on-foot bullish (but this was to try and cash in on the GTA craze).

While I did enjoy Sonic Adventure, I wouldn't argue your main point. They did what they could do with that franchise. The franchise however consisted of five games that were good to great (Sonic, Sonic 2, Sonic 3, Sonic CD, Sonic & Knuckles). That is a lot of mileage out of the one trick the game had. If they miffed with what made those games successful sooner, like releasing Sonic 3d Blast after Sonic 1, maybe those other games would never have come to be.

Every series isn't meant to last forever, and Sonic's best days are long behind him (unless something amazing happens next gen), but 3 great and 2 good games in a franchise is more than satisfying for me.

And seriously you're cheating by bringing Mario into the mix. He's just a freak with adjusting to the times. I will say that even with all the new features, the latest games are still very true to the original NES version.

RichC2

Which hurt Snake Eater, imho. Very well produced game, but the gameplay just felt painfully dated by that point.

chess

It would be cheating if I hadn't mentioned Zelda and Metroid as well. The truly freakish thing is that they are all from the same developer!

Agree that Metal Gear is an exception in that it meets my second criteria (time between titles), but the actual gameplay (and this is just me) isn't very interesting anymore. Stealth games have been done to death and have been done better. I never finished the second MGS and never bought the third.

So far, Rockstar has done a commendable job maintaining the integrity of Grand Theft Auto throughout its lifetime. GTA3, Vice City, and San Andreas all had similar and solid core gameplay, were remarkably polished, and each had their own distinct flavor. Even now, I can't think of a game with a more fully realized world than GTA3 other than its sequels.

Off topic note to Josh: Go play Ratchet 2 and then buy 3 and play it. Run, don't walk. Those are terrific games and are probably the only games to pull off the platformer/shooter hybrid other than Metroid Prime. My favorite platformer series* this generation, bar none.

*Sunshine is still technically my favorite platformer this gen...but not a series.

lordwow

I personally find GTA:SA a bit boring, but I think it is a matter of "ya there's a ton of new stuff, but not enough changed."

It's the same with the Sims and it's 20 expansion packs and The Sims 2... I can only take that for so long before I'm completely bored out of my mind.

Supermallet

Which is why they made Subsistence.

I think the style of game also affects how much innovation will help/hurt it. Platformers, imo, can get away with a lot less innovation because, in the end, you're still jumping and running around to get to the end goal. Other genres don't get that easy pass.

Blitz6Speed

I think this has a lot to do with how innovative the original title itself was. 2 games instantly popped into my head while reading this thread. One was god of war, one was kingdom hearts.

Kingdom Hearts 1 was an amazing game. I logged over 80 hours in it and loved every second of it. I would go back and play it just to get to level 99! There was NOTHING wrong with the game, i just wanted more. What did the sequal give me? More of the same, with just better graphics, new story and the same amazing gameplay and characters. They just polished up things that sucked, such as Gummi Missions, summons, etc, and now its pretty much perfection. That is why it sold through the roof and shows that if the game has everything you already need it, dont add gimmicks. Just clean it up and present it, people will love it.

God Of War 2 looks identical to the original GOW gameplay/concept wise. The graphics look better, new weapons and new story. I personally GUARENTEE that this game will set a sales record. They didnt need to give kratos a backpack to sell this one, the game was amazing as heck as it is, just give him a few more goodies, great new levels and bosses, awesome cut scenes and better graphics and serve well done. Certain games dont need extra innovation, as they were plenty innovative at their first entry.

However, games like Sonic, i 100% agree with. After sonic 2, the games just felt like re-hashes to me. My favorite castlevania of ALL TIME is easily SOTN (PS1) followed by Castlevania 4 for SNES. SOTN is the epitomy of gaming masterpeice. If they re-did it with new levels and updated graphics, i'd have 0 problems spending 59.99 on it. That game needed NOTHING, it was amazing from start to finish. I am not a big fan of the new 3d castlevanias at all, they play like crap imo. Ive never tried the DS castlevanias but hear they're pretty nifty, although very similar to old school castlevanias.

So yah, not all games really need a gimmick thrown in to keep it fresh, those that do obviously didnt get it 100% from the start. That is just my opinion however.

Joe Molotov

Just look at the Shadowrun FPS for the Xbox 360. There's some "innovation" I could have done without.