Why are there people who insist that there should be major changes to a series?

#111SMASHKING84Posted 5/22/2013 4:44:51 PM
Vyers posted...
That is factually untrue, as evidenced numerous times.

How many 2D games can properly simulate a behind-the-camera style, which is a gameplay modification, not an aesthetic one?


more then one. point moot.

and the fact you think NEW TYPES nand 3d is MORE innovative then NEW GAMEPLAY MECHANICS prooves you know nothing about innovation.

nintendo could LITERALLY remake smb 1 in 3d and you'd consider that innovative.
because 3d=AUTOMATIC FREE PASS FOR BEING A REHASH.

oot played EXACTLY the same as alttp the ONLY difference was the story,the 3d,and the field design EVERYTHING ELSE WAS LIFTED FROM ALTTP.

it be nice is tp was the first 3d zelda because that would prove those who praise oot FOR BEING 3D and those who like TRUE INNOVATION.

like NEW MODES,and NEW MECHANICS i.e things pokemon has NO zelda game since olz had.
---
Gamefaqs where Innovation is more important then quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TuOa40N7hw
#112TAoRPosted 5/22/2013 4:52:03 PM
Stop trying so hard smash-chan
#113VyersPosted 5/22/2013 5:02:14 PM
1. Really? Name one.

2. At what point did I say that those things are more innovative? What I DID say was that they WERE innovative. It has nothing to do with "more or less" and has everything to do with debunking your statement that Mario 3 and OoT were by-the-numbers sequels.

3. For that to be true - the remake of SMB in 3D causing me to call it innovation - you have to demonstrate that, with Ocarina of Time, I only ever argued that it being in 3D was the one and only reason why it was an innovative game. If SMB was modeled in 3D, it would not be innovative unless they did other things to set it apart.

4. Exactly the same? Hmm. Lifted from ALttP? Hmm. As someone who knows both of those games in and out - ALttP I can reliably complete in 3 and a half hours without deaths, as well beat it with only the required items (ie no Heart Pieces collected), I can tell you quite reliably that OoT takes almost nothing from ALttP. For one, Z Targeting was created in OoT. For another, all dungeons in OoT are new. For another, many of the enemies are either new to OoT or never appeared in ALttP. For another, the story is actually more similar to ALttP than anything else. OoT has a first-person aiming mechanic. OoT has horse-riding, which ALttP didn't have. OoT allowed you to equip three items at once, totaling five with sword and shield - the greatest number of items that can be equipped. No, you see, OoT is nothing like ALttP, mechanically.

5. TP would receive significant praise for being the series' foray into 3D. I don't see why it wouldn't. If OoT came after it, it would be regarded as a rehash of TP because TP took a lot of stuff from OoT that, in this pretend scenario, OoT would have taken from TP.

6. Since when are new modes or mechanics the foundation of innovation? SMB, in all intents and purposes, is an evolution of principles already established. Running and jumping. However, it innovated through the use of a scrolling screen, momentum-based running, a health system, and in general being the biggest platform game of its time. SMB didn't become something amazing by making Mario into a space shooter. It made it amazing by expanding it from being a single-screen platform game to being a sidescrolling platform game.
---
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThankTheBear Subscribe for LPs of Pokemon Snap, The Legend of Zelda, Dragon Warrior, Super Mario Bros. 3, Bionicle, and more~!
#114SMASHKING84Posted 5/22/2013 5:06:40 PM
Since i'm SICK of people like you this will explain why experimentation DOESN'T work.
it's a lose-lose situation NO MATTER what.

1.You can't guarentee the casual fans will like the experiement did to draw them in
2.If you do sucessfully do a gameplay style they like chances are,they'll want the next game to be similar to that
3.that leaves you with an issuse to you cater to then new fans,try to gain new fans or both
4.you also risk pissing off your fans
5.if you decide to stick with the formula you introduced in the last game people claim your doing another rehash

6.the fans you had before that stuck through the experiemnt may leave now that your doing ONLY this new style
7.if you decide to change things AGIAN the ne fans may leave and hell some old fans might too
8.eventually if you keep changing the forumla even the players your trying to attract may say "this looks terrible"(pmss is a good example of this)

In the end this process of RADICAL change is a HIGH RISK low reward system.
While minor changes every game will keep the fans intreasted,and will bring in new players too.
in other words "minor" innovative is LOW RISK high reward system.
and frankly a dev would have to be either stupid or desperate to even try this.
---
Gamefaqs where Innovation is more important then quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TuOa40N7hw
#115VyersPosted 5/22/2013 5:30:03 PM
1. Casual fan? What kind of casual fan even cares what happens to the franchise in terms of creativity? I guess casual fans asked for Galaxy, while the "real" fans said "I hate things that don't play like the 80s!".

2. Why? If they want the franchise to be constantly growing, your argument requires constant growth.

3. The people who want change are not "new fans". In fact, the people who want to see change are far more likely to have grown up with it than the people who want the series to stay the same.

4. That's a risk in all art forms. If NIntendo was afraid of that most of their greatest games ever made wouldn't exist. Donkey Kong was going up against the expectations of the media and the industry at large. If they were afraid of trying something new, we would have no Mario to this day.

5. Except that Galaxy 2 rated almost just as well as Galaxy 1 did. Your argument fails because Galaxy 2 proves that a game can use the same formula while still feeling fresh.

6. Dude, what you're describing is stagnation. No one is asking Nintendo to change once and then continue stagnating. No one ever has.

7. That's not a realistic scenario. Case in point please?

8. PMSS is not a good example of this because no one was asking for the formula to change. PMTTYD was an innovative game not because it changed genres or dumbed the gameplay down, but because it made the game feel like it was its own product. I don't know that any New SMB games do that ever. They all feel like they're the same game with different level designs and power-ups. Like it or not, Paper Mario TTYD is a game that represents change, not stagnation.

9. The problem with your argument is that you are so confused with the idea of "minor" innovations. SMB3 is defined by its groundbreaking, genre-defining, revolutionary changes to the Mario formula. Not changing the formula, taking the old formula and making it feel new again. Looking back, I cannot say honestly that New SMB 1 and 2 are different enough to require they both be played. This is not true for SMB3. If you played SMB, you have plenty of reasons to play SMB3.
---
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThankTheBear Subscribe for LPs of Pokemon Snap, The Legend of Zelda, Dragon Warrior, Super Mario Bros. 3, Bionicle, and more~!
#116wiiking96Posted 5/22/2013 5:42:08 PM
I'd like to post another random thought:

In a traditional sequel(like Donkey Kong Country 2 or Metroid Prime 1), here are a few quidelines that I would follow:
- Keep the core fundementals of the gameplay the same; maybe even reuse the same engine.
- Look closely at the elements that made the first game enjoyable and popular; make sure to keep these and not tamper with them too much.
- If you want to introduce a big new gameplay element that is risky, don't have it be a replacement, have it be AN ADDITION.
- Only replace or remove something from the first like an attack, an enemy, or a boss.
A) It's something insignificant like an enemy, sidequest
B) It didn't work in the first game.
C) You want to freshen up a smaller part of the game with something new.
- Try to avoid excessively reusing minor elements like enemies, bosses, and music.
- Give the game enough unique qualities so that it feels very distinct from the first game.
---
More villains need to be protagonists. BIS proves it can work.
Ridley, Ganondorf, Fawful, Bowser, and Dimentio all for their own games!
#117SMASHKING84Posted 5/22/2013 6:00:39 PM(edited)
1. Casual fan? What kind of casual fan even cares what happens to the franchise in terms of creativity? I guess casual fans asked for Galaxy, while the "real" fans said "I hate things that don't play like the 80s!".
many games like banjo koozie nuts and bolts are made FOR THIS PURPOSE. its the same reason pmss was made. they cared more about recuiting new players than catering to fans.

2. Why? If they want the franchise to be constantly growing, your argument requires constant growth. the point is you either stick with the NEW formula OR keep changing.
if you keep reinventing the wheel EVENTUALLY you'll have to do things out of your fans comfort zone

3. The people who want change are not "new fans". In fact, the people who want to see change are far more likely to have grown up with it than the people who want the series to stay the same.
if you like something MORE OF THE SAME ISN'T bad. proof:mario 3 WAS STILL A MARIO STYLED PLATFORMER.

4. That's a risk in all art forms. If Nintendo was afraid of that most of their greatest games ever made wouldn't exist. Donkey Kong was going up against the expectations of the media and the industry at large. If they were afraid of trying something new, we would have no Mario to this day.
you said pokemon has NEVER INNOVATIVATED and then you claimed A SEREIS NEEDS INNOVATION TO SURVIVE. which is it? oh btw MARIO AND POKEMON by far nintendo's LEAST INNOVATIVE SERIESES are they're HIGHEST SELLING.

5. Except that Galaxy 2 rated almost just as well as Galaxy 1 did. Your argument fails because Galaxy 2 proves that a game can use the same formula while still feeling fresh.
NOPE games ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE SEQUELS YOU SAID SO YOURSELF

6. Dude, what you're describing is stagnation. No one is asking Nintendo to change once and then continue stagnating. No one ever has.
Then explain why mario went BACK to the old forumula AFTER SUNSHINE?

7. That's not a realistic scenario. Case in point please?
pmss

8. PMSS is not a good example of this because no one was asking for the formula to change. PMTTYD was an innovative game not because it changed genres or dumbed the gameplay down, but because it made the game feel like it was its own product. I don't know that any New SMB games do that ever. They all feel like they're the same game with different level designs and power-ups. Like it or not, Paper Mario TTYD is a game that represents change, not stagnation.
so your logic is games SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ENDLESS REHASHES UNTIL FANS SPEAK UP? great logic that's why mario stays the same because there has been no large outcry against mario EVER.

9. The problem with your argument is that you are so confused with the idea of "minor" innovations. SMB3 is defined by its groundbreaking, genre-defining, revolutionary changes to the Mario formula. Not changing the formula, taking the old formula and making it feel new again. Looking back, I cannot say honestly that New SMB 1 and 2 are different enough to require they both be played. This is not true for SMB3. If you played SMB, you have plenty of reasons to play SMB3.
your definition of major change is new levels new music and bosses the BARE BONES of what a sequel should have.
---
Gamefaqs where Innovation is more important then quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TuOa40N7hw
#118SMASHKING84Posted 5/22/2013 5:47:22 PM
wiiking96 posted...
I'd like to post another random thought:

In a traditional sequel(like Donkey Kong Country 2 or Metroid Prime 1), here are a few quidelines that I would follow:
- Keep the core fundementals of the gameplay the same; maybe even reuse the same engine.
- Look closely at the elements that made the first game enjoyable and popular; make sure to keep these and not tamper with them too much.
- If you want to introduce a big new gameplay element that is risky, don't have it be a replacement, have it be AN ADDITION.
- Only replace or remove something from the first like an attack, an enemy, or a boss.
A) It's something insignificant like an enemy, sidequest
B) It didn't work in the first game.
C) You want to freshen up a smaller part of the game with something new.
- Try to avoid excessively reusing minor elements like enemies, bosses, and music.
- Give the game enough unique qualities so that it feels very distinct from the first game.


name one thing that pokemon DOESN'T DO ON THAT LIST.
---
Gamefaqs where Innovation is more important then quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TuOa40N7hw
#119LightHawKnight(Topic Creator)Posted 5/22/2013 6:30:03 PM
PhaseSlaethe posted...
Change for the sake of change is pointless.

However, you WILL stagnate. You MUST consider the reality that you will need to adapt and evolve at some point.

Nintendo's greatest fault is that they lack the full pair of testicles necessary. They get scared to go the full distance. And that is what you NEED when you decide to change something.

Metroid going to Prime was a fantastic jump. Same with Zelda. Same with Mario. Those were changes handled well.

Even Other M, as garbage as the game was, made some nice leaps in the gameplay. The rest was just a travesty.


You clearly do not know what evolution and adapting is. Both of those are very very very slow processes, which should happen and is exactly what Nintendo does. Slowly, but surely upgrade games, change and make areas better, whilst keeping the games the same. For the same series. Though they kinda failed badly at PM.
---
The Official Odin of the Shin Megami Tensei IV board.
"You know how confusing the whole good-evil concept is for me."
#120VyersPosted 5/22/2013 7:50:16 PM
1. I don't know why you're bringing in this element. We're discussing change vs. not change, and the people who want it. New fans are not those who want it.

2. Case study, please. I would love to see a case where a franchise is forced to constantly change and is thereby harmed by the direction. PS: Sticker Star is not an example, because it is the first in a direction taken.

3. Why is it that the "fanbase" of today gets to decide when too much change is too bad? Why is Super Mario Bros. for the NES not the most we need? Why weren't you satisfied with that and its expansion-styled sequel? Why did you need Mario USA, Mario 3, Mario World, etc.?

3a. As for Mario 3, I'm a bit flabbergasted by your constant clinging to it as an example of "more of the same". It's not more of the same. Disagreeing with me on that is not a matter of opinion vs. opinion, it's a matter of you denying fact. Seriously, I don't want you to even reply to me again if you do not answer this simple yes/no question: do you realize that people who are arguing for change are NOT arguing for change akin to Sticker Star, but want to see improvements and innovations on the level of SMB3, regarded as one of the most influential platform games to this very day? That's a yes or no question, please answer it.

4. Not only have I never claimed that Pokemon has never innovated, in this very thread I claimed the exact opposite. So I guess it would be the latter.

4a. Honestly, you're arguing to the effect that Mario is not innovative? Mario 1 introduced sidescrolling; Mario 2 introduced a pick-up/carry/throw mechanic, the ability to backtrack in a level, and the ability to go from horizontal platforming to vertical platforming; Mario 3 introduces slopes, flight, a world map, and the ability to launch shells; World introduced an enhanced flight system, Yoshi, a totally accessible and connected world map, and the spin jump, which was the ground pound before there was a ground pound. Basically, Mario games change, grow, and evolve a lot.

5. Nope.

6. Because it didn't. Galaxy was its own formula. The platforming was different, the challenge was different, the level designs were different from any kind of Mario game before it. Galaxy 1 was a new formula.

7. PMSS did not grow from another growth. What it was was a second attempt, a faulty attempt, at changing PM. What we're discussing is when a franchise changes to some degree, continues going in that direction, and falters. A better example would be Lords of Shadow.

8. That isn't even evident in what I just said. TTYD changed because they wanted to make sure the series didn't stagnate. Fans shouldn't have to demand that they continue to make their franchises interesting and unique with each installment, but since that doesn't always happen - and too often because of the developers simply choosing not to - fans have to do so.

9. How in the world could you interpret that as what I've ever said? In fact, I've literally stated the opposite and criticized franchises that do ONLY that, such as the New SMB series, where aside from multi-player in the Wii version, focused on expanding upon New SMB with new levels, new bosses, and new music (to a much lesser extent in the latter's case). Everything I have praised SMB3 and OoT for have been purely mechanical. You are well aware that what I am discussing is based in mechanics, such as flying in Mario 3, which in no way can be interpreted as those bare-bones concepts you brought up.
---
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThankTheBear Subscribe for LPs of Pokemon Snap, The Legend of Zelda, Dragon Warrior, Super Mario Bros. 3, Bionicle, and more~!