(VG debate) Innovation vs. Tradition: When should developers break a formula?

[Ryusuta]

It's a puzzle that's sort of been occupying my mind for awhile, now. It's a question that can apply to a lot of subjects, but it's particularly noteworthy in video games. When should developers try and reinvent a tried-and-true franchise?

Take Mario, for instance. When he made the jump to 3D in Mario 64, it was practically unheard-of at the time. No Mario game had ever been even remotely like Mario 64 was before it came out. It was a HUGE gamble for Nintendo to take with their flagship series, to say the least. But as we all know, it paid off in a huge way. Same with Zelda's move to 3D.

Other series have taken great strides by being reinvented, as well. One could argue that, as popular as the other games in the series were, Symphony of the Night really put Castlevania on the map and set a new tone for the series from that point on.

But mentioning Castlevania actually brings me to the other side of the spectrum. Castlevania did well in evolving to the Metroidvania format (more so than CV2, I mean), but on the other hand, no 3D Castlevania has EVER achieved anything close to the same amount of critical praise and success as 2D Castlevania. It's an innovation that has been tried in the series numerous times, but has been met with modest success at best (Curse of Darkness), and absolute disdain at worst (CV64).

And I don't remember the last time I've ever heard of a Street Fighter EX + a tournament.

It's not just the jump to 3D that has turned off fans of a series in the past, though. A wonky new control scheme, removal of beloved characters, or even something as simple as changing the scoring system (*cough*DDRandBeatmania*cough*) can all lead to alienating supporters of the series as well as discouraging new buyers.

On the other hand, you could rest on your laurels and let your series stagnate. Devel May Cry 2 made that mistake.

I could (and probably will) go on and on, but the key point I'm trying to raise is... when do you think it's better for developers to pull the trigger when it comes to changing the staples and expectations of a well-known series? And when is it better to stick with a tried-and-true formula that everyone loves and wants more of?

 

[Darxmarth23]

If i understand what you are saying then i say not any time soon.

take starfox for example. When they moved to ground based combat then a lot of ppl started to dislike the series.

I think i have seen a lot of this happening.

This is a risky thing.

Either it could be very bad, or very good.

 

[Ryusuta]

Yeah, and therein lies the problem. It's hard to say exactly when (and in some cases, if) a series should be changed.

It's as much a matter of timing as anything else, too. Naturally, the longer a series is in the public eye, the more jarring it is when changes are made to the series. And heck, sometimes the hype surrounding changes in the game can actually account for most of the interest in the new release. On the other hand, it can also bury a title before it even gets a chance to stand on its own merits.

 

[Mediocre]

This is a well conceived, intelligent thread, but the Debate Hall is not the place for it.

The Light House is the appropriate place for videogame threads, even threads that are videogame debates.

 

[Ryusuta]

No biggie, I guess. I didn't know debates were quite this centralized, and wanted to broaden the horizons of the board a little. Sorry about that.

 

[BloodyPuppy]

I don't think it should ever be a question of innovation vs. tradition, I feel developers should always be asking themselves how they can evolve the formula without changing the core idea of the game. Leaning too far to either side can screw a game up. Black Isle hardly changed anything with Fallout 2, and though it was sucessful it still recieves its fair share of criticism for importing too many elements of Fallout 1 simply for nostalgia's sake, and in addition the combat was just as one-dimensional as it was in Fallout 1. There were improvements over Fallout 2 though, so it wasn't identical in every way (unlike a game like say X-Com: Terror of the Deep). Bethesda screwed up and alienated the fanbase by releasing a Fallout game that lacked many Fallout elements. The dialogue was bad, it lacked versimillitude within the Fallout universe, the RPG elements had negligible effects on gameplay, the main quest was painfully linear, etc. Fallout 3 may have been a commercial sucess, but only because the formula was dumbed down and streamlined to attract fans of other genres. It's basically an RPG for people who don't like RPGs.

So I think devs need to find a balance between the two for each game that they make.

 

[notftomearth7]

Honestly, in the current context, I vote tradition over innovation. I mean, Wii Fit , c'mon! The Wii is pretty innovative as a system, but there comes a point where to much innovation goes to far, where developers forget about what video gaming is all about, such is the case for Wii Music and Wii Fit

 

[Jimnymebob]

Good question.

I'd say that developers should break from a formula whenever they feel like it, because you'll never know if you never try.
I don't think they should focus on making a game solely based around what fans want, because if they did that, the fans would still complain about it being too different from the "classic" original.

One of the biggest changes like this that springs to my mind was Rayman 4, or Raving Rabbids as it became. If anyone remembers the original trailers for this then you should remember that it definitely wasn't going to be a party game. The fact that their last platformer wasn't as successful as Rayman 2 may have caused the change, but it could have been anything really.

It's a strange thing with tradition and innovation, because after some years, innovation will be tradition, and they will need to find new ways to innovate.
Take the Wii for example- it is innovative, but it could be unsuccessful in the long run, and Nintendo could move back to traditional non motion control gameplay.
If it is successful, then the next console, and the console after that could us motion sensor, and that will eventually become tradition, and it'll take something else to improve, or change that.

In conclusion, I say innovation over tradition, because I believe that if you just stick with tradition, then people will eventually tire of it. If everyone started making games similar to Super Mario Bros., and Nintendo kept making sequels which were exactly the same and added nothing new to the formula, you would get tired with those games, and would be begging for someone to come along with a different idea.

 

[Ryusuta]

Do you suppose that the fanbase of the series in question would factor into it? Like, do you suppose that fans of some series are more open to change than others?

 

[BloodyPuppy]

Fans of certain series are probably more open to innovation than others. I'd say the more niche the game, the more the fanbase wants it to stay the same, and the more outraged they're going to be when the formula is significantly changed. However I think that the intelligent members of a fanbase will be open to change in the form of upgrades to the core game. I think what it comes down to is not leaving what makes the series what it is on the cutting room floor. Even with bringing a 2D series to 3D I think that all a dev really needs to do is not make drastic changes to what makes a series great. I feel like I've been harping on and on about Fallout lately, so I'll pick a different game. Say Roller Coaster Tycoon. That series had a fantastic first entry, and the second entry was basically the same **** thing. A lot of people were none too pleased with this, but fortunately the third entry was a big upgrade. In addition to bringing the series into 3D, it kept the things that made the first one (and the second since it was identical) great, managing a theme park and designing rides, and also added on some welcome features like a way to ride the rides in your park, design families who would come to your park, and a much higher level of customization of the landscape. Same core concept, but updated.

I also think that people confuse change and innovation too much. You can change plenty of things about a game and it won't be innovation. Take the Commandos series for example. That was always a fun RTS series (albeit with a bit of a learning curve) and they took it and made a generic FPS out of it. That may be change, but that is not innovation.

 

[Scott!]

This is definitely a tricky balance that developers need to worry about. They definitely need to make sure they maintain the basic underlying themes of the game, and gameplay as well. Let's compare some examples. Take Metroid Prime and Star Fox Adventures. Both changed a lot about their series compared to previous entries. Metroid Prime introduced 3D, and a first person perspective to the series, as well as plenty of other features. Adventures introduced ground action to Star Fox.

But these changes have a subtle difference in their nature. In Prime, all those changes didn't change what the player did, just how they did it. The point of old Metroid games was to explore the world, looking for power-ups and fighting aliens and all that fun stuff. In Prime, you did all of this while in a 3D world, looking from Samus' viewpoint. Same idea, different execution.

In Adventures, you saw the main idea of Star Fox, the space flight rail shooting, put to the side in favor of ground-based exploration. Sure, there was some, but nowhere near enough for fans. The basic idea of what the gameplay was was changed, and it didn't go over so well.

Personally, I like it when the developers go for risks, as long as the quality is there to back it up. My favorite example of messing with a formula is Wind Waker. I, like everyone, judged it by the graphics. But that didn't stop me, and it's gotta be in my top 3 Zelda games.

One last thing; formulas are not safe. "Playing it safe" and not changing much can cause dissatisfaction for some. Back to Zelda, Twilight Princess is inferior for many because its story is, at its core, a rehash of Ocarina of Time. There is a lot different, but it is just Link saving Zelda while beating Ganon into submission so he can be locked away until next time. I loved the game, but people had issues with this. I do expect something different from the next Zelda, however. Something different, in the vein of Majora's Mask.

It's a tricky thing. Looking at some of these series, I have to ask questions. What if instead of Adventures, Star Fox got a game of a load of space missions based on reaching and defeating Andross? Essentially, Star Fox 64, again. It's what people wish it was, but if it were the same, would they have had a problem with it being a clone? Or would they love it? I guess it would depend on how good the game was.

 

[BloodyPuppy]

I think that sticking to a formula can be very safe. Just look at Bethesda, they've pretty much been releasing the same game for years, just dumbed down and made prettier, and as of late nuked. And sure, the transition from Daggerfall to Morrowind pissed off the hardcore fans, but brought in new ones who weren't fans of the first two. Then Bethesda pissed off Morrowind and Daggerfall fans with Oblivion, but it was appealing to an even wider fanbase so they were safe there too. Then they pissed off fans of an entirely different series by releasing Oblivion 2207. Same **** game every time.

 

[br4n]

interesting thread /subscribe

 

[Charizard92]

When a series changes formula is somewhat determined by a set of factors:

1: the 3D flip
Examples: Super Mario 64, Metroid Prime:
Face it, during the change from SNES to N64, any series that wanted to survive had to be 3D. The guys at Nintendo wanted to take a step further. It wasn't enough to start in 3D, they wanted to make the first ever 3D platformer (Before Super Mario 64, 3D platformers worked like 2D ones). This was a huge leap, as nobody has tried this before. To help out, the C buttons were used to move the camera, so you could always look behind you. The game performed marvelously, being the one game the series has tried to live up to since (only Super Mario galaxy has surpassed it among Mario platformers, let alone Mario games).
While Mario got an Idea from the start, Nintendo couldn't really come up with any Ideas to get another series into the change, Metroid. This gap (which took 8 years) scarred fans into believing that Super Metroid was the last Metroid game. Metroid Fusion took away their woes, but Nintendo got an Idea on how to translate the 2D genre into 3D, give the series to Retro studios. Of course, many people had some doubts on this, as the series has never been in 3D, from a first person perspective (the control scheme was designed for exploration, not shooting things to bits), or in the hands of a 2nd party. All fears were squashed once Metroid has finally launched onto the gamecube, and back into the TV, Metroid Prime. After this, Metroid went into the new FPA direction, only turning back to remake Samus' first mission (Metroid Zero Mission). Metroid Prime became a subseries, spanning two consoles with three games, and with two spin offs (Metroid Prime pinball and Metroid Prime Hunters).

2: Reanimating an old Idea:
examples: Starfox adventures:
When Rare was firmly in Nintendo's hands, They were producing games that were hits (especially Donkey Kong). they were meant to release another game too, Named Dinosaur Planet. The game would have came out at the end of the N64's lifespan, so the game was scrapped. Once Nintendo got a look at it, They noticed that one of the characters looked similar to one of their own characters, Fox. Eventually the game got morphed into what is now known as Starfox adventures. Reception was sketchy. While the zelda control system and a couple of other stuff was good, it just didn't feel like a Starfox game. It is also somewhat contributed to what some call the "fall" of the series. Fans have many reasons for this (from an awkward feel to the introduction of Krystal). Hopefully, Nintendo can stop this plummet.

3: Attempts to fix a character:
example: Sonic
If you're a Sonic fan, you would have no Idea why I'd be saying this. If you're not, you know why. For some reason, Sonic started to go downwards, and no matter how hard Sega tries, their only success over the several years is by following Nintendo's path with Metroid and give the blue guy to someone else (Sonic Chronicles). Sega has tried innovation after innovation, from playing as one of Sonic's fluffy friends to other mechanics (most recently, the werehog mechanic). This is one of those times where innovationg is a bad Idea. Most critics support Sonic when he's running on tracks like before, yet hate it when they throw something else in (Sonic Unleashed is the best example of this, as Critics liked the running levels, but were upset with the Werehog levels, and outright detest the hub levels).

Like the roll of the dice, when and how you innovate has mixed blessings, from good (ex, allowing a series to transition a generation change or two, like Mario or Metroid), questionable: (ex. starfox), or downright bad (Sonic).