Should Games Start Taking Risks?

[Satangel]

the problem is that developers dump too much money into games to be able to afford to take risks. If their expensive AAA title flops, they might be filing for bankruptcy. If you want games that take a risk, you mostly have to look to smaller developers that aren't going to spend so much money that they can't afford to try something new.

This pretty much. Been mentioned here a few times already, but they need to make money, and even 1 big investment that totally flops, can spell disaster for your company. So of course, the safe route is often (and understandably) much preferred

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Honestly, I don't think so. Not until this generation of gamers dies first.

The problem is that this generation of gamers, we don't want anything new, but yet we do. Take IP's for example. We cry for more original IP's. But when we get them, we don't buy them.

 

[Deleted-188346]

Boy, tough question.

I'll pick the obvious answer and say no, we shouldn't take risks. Fresh, new, and exciting gameplay? That's for nerds! All the cool kids believe in constant repetition!

 

[calmwaters]

Honestly, I don't think so. Not until this generation of gamers dies first.

The problem is that this generation of gamers, we don't want anything new, but yet we do. Take IP's for example. We cry for more original IP's. But when we get them, we don't buy them.

You mean this generation of gamers is content with playing Call of Doody Mario? But when something new comes out, we'd rather play Call of Doody Mario instead? You mean we can't be appeased by just one new title; we need a whole slew of them. Just look at the PS1 and the SNES if you don't think we want diverse, new games.

 

[stanleyopar2000]

Of course it is.

After 20 years of the same Helicopter 2D view crap, and after we've had 3D handheld technology for another 10 years, they finally decided to release a proper 3D Pokemon game. In 2013. The first (proper) 3D Pokemon game was released in 2013.

This will be something for the history books.

I know..even though Fossil FIghters, Dinosaurs Clash of Giants, Zoids DS, Dino King, had already attempted 3D character renders for the FIRST GEN DS. ...I think piracy on the first gen DS held them back..plus platinum, black and white were selling like hotcakes and they barely changed anything except ZOMG SCROLLING 3D CITIEZ

 

[Hadrian]

For a lot of series I'd prefer if they went back to having some more gameplay rather then the "walk up a corridor, shoot people, in game cutscene, quicktime event" that we've been plagued with recently. Play any Call of Duty games after CoD 4 and then play the first CoD and you'll notice that the first game actually seems larger and more imersive. If they remade it but only changed the graphics the critics will be like "wow this is the future".

I'm more than fine with what Nintendo is doing, people critiscise them for doing the same Zelda...(it's like they haven't played Spirit Tracks which changes a lot of the core gameplay and is kinda crappy) but that is the thing, if they change things people will moan and just go "oh we want a top down Zelda like LTTP but on a console in HD rabble rabble". Or with StarFox "rabble rabble we don't want this crap, go back to the N64 game rabble".

When people want a new Zelda, Mario or Metroid they want them because they love the style of gameplay they offered, Nintendo might as well save new ideas for new IPs...which no one will buy and will be forgotten until someone posts on Kotaku "lol lol it would be nice if Nintendo made fresh new series lol lol".

 

[ShadowSoldier]

For a lot of series I'd prefer if they went back to having some more gameplay rather then the "walk up a corridor, shoot people, in game cutscene, quicktime event" that we've been plagued with recently. Play any Call of Duty games after CoD 4 and then play the first CoD and you'll notice that the first game actually seems larger and more imersive. If they remade it but only changed the graphics the critics will be like "wow this is the future".

I'm more than fine with what Nintendo is doing, people critiscise them for doing the same Zelda...(it's like they haven't played Spirit Tracks which changes a lot of the core gameplay and is kinda crappy) but that is the thing, if they change things people will moan and just go "oh we want a top down Zelda like LTTP but on a console in HD rabble rabble". Or with StarFox "rabble rabble we don't want this crap, go back to the N64 game rabble".

When people want a new Zelda, Mario or Metroid they want them because they love the style of gameplay they offered, Nintendo might as well save new ideas for new IPs...which no one will buy and will be forgotten until someone posts on Kotaku "lol lol it would be nice if Nintendo made fresh new series lol lol".

Well that's the thing right, none of Nintendo's IP's really feel the same to their counterparts.

Skyward Sword doesn't feel like Twilight Princess, TP doesn't feel like WW, WW doesn't feel like MM, and MM doesn't feel like OoT.
Mario 3D World doesn't feel like NSMB, Galaxy, Sunshine, Mario 64 etc.

 

[Hadrian]

Well that's the thing right, none of Nintendo's IP's really feel the same to their counterparts.

Skyward Sword doesn't feel like Twilight Princess, TP doesn't feel like WW, WW doesn't feel like MM, and MM doesn't feel like OoT.
Mario 3D World doesn't feel like NSMB, Galaxy, Sunshine, Mario 64 etc.

They are subtle evolutions that follow a basic formula, it's what Nintendo does best. They've done a yearly Mario platform since NSMB Wii and have added bits here and there to keep them from being the same game but still not taking out what was fun in the same place.

Seriously if Nintendo ever dies (which I don't see considering they ALWAYS have an incredibly popular handheld platform if a home console flops), I'd lose interest in console gaming.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

They are subtle evolutions that follow a basic formula, it's what Nintendo does best. They've done a yearly Mario platform since NSMB Wii and have added bits here and there to keep them from being the same game but still not taking out what was fun in the same place.

Seriously if Nintendo ever dies (which I don't see considering they ALWAYS have an incredibly popular handheld platform if a home console flops), I'd lose interest in console gaming.

Honestly, not to sound like a fanboy, but I'm with you there. PC gaming is the closest thing to enjoyment that I get out of a Nintendo console.

I mean at the end of the day, sometimes I just like playing mindless fun like Mario where I'll know I'll have fun. Or a game that doesn't require tons and tons and tons of hours of my life and is tough, I get that out of Zelda.

 

[Taleweaver]

You mean this generation of gamers is content with playing Call of Doody Mario? But when something new comes out, we'd rather play Call of Doody Mario instead? You mean we can't be appeased by just one new title; we need a whole slew of them. Just look at the PS1 and the SNES if you don't think we want diverse, new games.

To answer: yes, yes, and yes: give us the whole slew!

And yes, I'm looking at the PS1 and SNES. Have you checked how many of those companies filed for bankruptcy or were taken over by a larger company because they couldn't make ends meet? Yes...it's THAT MUCH we truly want (to pay for) diverse, new games.

 

[DaniPoo]

Lets view it from another angle.. Why are many Final Fantasy fans angry with Square Enix these days?
Well it's because Square Enix has changed too much, drifting away from what the fans loved about the series.
they made an atempt to bring in more "final fantasy" elements with FFXIII-2 but they fail to understand what elements that they should bring back. They have to do more than just bring a moogle into the game and try a bit more complicated story.
They have to bring the soul of the series, I havnt had my eyes watering up since final fantasy X.
Every game before final fantasy X had the soul of a final fantasy game.

If nintendo were to take too many risks with their games it could end up the same for them. We dont want that right

 

[calmwaters]

To answer: yes, yes, and yes: give us the whole slew!

And yes, I'm looking at the PS1 and SNES. Have you checked how many of those companies filed for bankruptcy or were taken over by a larger company because they couldn't make ends meet? Yes...it's THAT MUCH we truly want (to pay for) diverse, new games.

Hmmm; then I guess we don't want new titles; we made companies bankrupt because we didn't buy their games, even though there was such a variety. And I don't think we have the same variety now that we did back then. I suppose we'd rather stick with what we like (which there's nothing wrong with) rather than try something new. And by new, I don't mean a later Final Fantasy game; I'm talking more about games like The Mask or Moonwalker. Of course, I wouldn't mind a quality version of Mario's Time Machine... that'd be a truly interdimensional adventure

 

[Blaze163]

To me it all depends on the nature of the game in question. With long established franchises like Final Fantasy, their recent 'innovations' have deviated too far from the core mechanics long term fans associate with the overall experience, and the end result is that the last few games are pretty much universally despised. If Final Fantasy 13 hadn't had the Final Fantasy label, it would probably have skirted by as an interesting experiment by a new IP that had a few good points but failed overall. The moment they put the Final Fantasy brand on it, much like with the Spirits Within movie, expectations went through the roof and it failed to live up to its legacy.

So what I would suggest is that if developers want to try new things, do it with new IPs. If it works, you have a brand new franchise on your hands and can fold the successful elements back into your main series. If it doesn't, then you may have made a bad game, but you didn't besmirch the name of a long standing franchise doing it. Imagine if Nintendo wanted to get away from the kiddy image they're pretty much doomed to have for all time now. They're not about to give Mario an assault rifle. They'd try it out on something innocuous, and only if it made them a truckload of money would you see Mario finding an uzi in those power blocks instead of a fire flower.

The obvious flaw in this is that a lot of games, Like FF13, sell on the strength of the brand. While it may not be the most loved Final Fantasy (no matter how many confusing as fuck sequels they push out to force it down our throats) it must have made a decent amount of money from day one sales of people, myself included, rabid for the new Final Fantasy game. They'd likely lose some money from the lack of brand recognition, but on the other hand they'd not lose so much money overall I think because in my experience gamers will forgive flaws in new IPs just starting out and still give a tentative recommendation, whereas the standards are infinitely higher in well established franchises and anything short of absolute perfection is considered heresy.

Of course this isn't a universal rule. Try anything innovative in Sonic games and it's considered a pointless gimmick because the fans have pretty much decided that Sonic was perfect on the Mega Drive and any change otherwise is just stupid.

I will say for the record though that I think gaming as a whole could use an infusion of fresh ideas. I can't be the only one sick to death of the paint-by-numbers quick buck yearly FPS parade that clutters up the modern market. It's all starting to feel a little stale. It's been quite a while since I've seen a trailer for a game that made me paw at my monitor like a cat trying to catch a mouse on the television. I remember seeing an early advert for Ocarina of Time and it was all I could talk about for months. These days the big titles are largely just the latest sequels. New CoD, new Battlefield, new Assassin's Creed, new FIFA, blah blah blah. It's not completely hopeless yet, there are still great games. But nothing's dropped my jaw for a long time if I'm honest.

 

[calmwaters]

To me it all depends on the nature of the game in question. With long established franchises like Final Fantasy, their recent 'innovations' have deviated too far from the core mechanics long term fans associate with the overall experience, and the end result is that the last few games are pretty much universally despised. If Final Fantasy 13 hadn't had the Final Fantasy label, it would probably have skirted by as an interesting experiment by a new IP that had a few good points but failed overall. The moment they put the Final Fantasy brand on it, much like with the Spirits Within movie, expectations went through the roof and it failed to live up to its legacy.

So what I would suggest is that if developers want to try new things, do it with new IPs. If it works, you have a brand new franchise on your hands and can fold the successful elements back into your main series. If it doesn't, then you may have made a bad game, but you didn't besmirch the name of a long standing franchise doing it. Imagine if Nintendo wanted to get away from the kiddy image they're pretty much doomed to have for all time now. They're not about to give Mario an assault rifle. They'd try it out on something innocuous, and only if it made them a truckload of money would you see Mario finding an uzi in those power blocks instead of a fire flower.

The obvious flaw in this is that a lot of games, Like FF13, sell on the strength of the brand. While it may not be the most loved Final Fantasy (no matter how many confusing as fuck sequels they push out to force it down our throats) it must have made a decent amount of money from day one sales of people, myself included, rabid for the new Final Fantasy game. They'd likely lose some money from the lack of brand recognition, but on the other hand they'd not lose so much money overall I think because in my experience gamers will forgive flaws in new IPs just starting out and still give a tentative recommendation, whereas the standards are infinitely higher in well established franchises and anything short of absolute perfection is considered heresy.

Of course this isn't a universal rule. Try anything innovative in Sonic games and it's considered a pointless gimmick because the fans have pretty much decided that Sonic was perfect on the Mega Drive and any change otherwise is just stupid.

I will say for the record though that I think gaming as a whole could use an infusion of fresh ideas. I can't be the only one sick to death of the paint-by-numbers quick buck yearly FPS parade that clutters up the modern market. It's all starting to feel a little stale. It's been quite a while since I've seen a trailer for a game that made me paw at my monitor like a cat trying to catch a mouse on the television. I remember seeing an early advert for Ocarina of Time and it was all I could talk about for months. These days the big titles are largely just the latest sequels. New CoD, new Battlefield, new Assassin's Creed, new FIFA, blah blah blah. It's not completely hopeless yet, there are still great games. But nothing's dropped my jaw for a long time if I'm honest.

But I still want a God of War type Mario game. Fans of the Mario series would like that. I hope.

 

[DaniPoo]

^ He is joking right? Nintendo would never ever do something like that.
Nintendo has a specific and simpel formula that you kan find in every Mario game exept for maybe Super Mario 2.
"Jump on enemies and use power-up's", Mario also has it's own "cartoony" visual style. They wont change this, atleast not in the main series. Closest thing I could see happening is a Whip Power-up and some onscreen button combo for a boss.

 

[grossaffe]

^ He is joking right? Nintendo would never ever do something like that.
Nintendo has a specific and simpel formula that you kan find in every Mario game exept for maybe Super Mario 2.
"Jump on enemies and use power-up's", Mario also has it's own "cartoony" visual style. They wont change this, atleast not in the main series. Closest thing I could see happening is a Whip Power-up and some onscreen button combo for a boss.

But don't you want to see Mario cut off Bowser's balls and force-feed them to him?

 

[DaniPoo]

Does Bowser have balls??

 

[grossaffe]

Does Bowser have balls??

Not after Maritos is through with him.

 

[DS1]

Whoops, I meant to vote yes (the topic title is actually the opposite of the poll question). Taking risks would kill profits in the long run. Even fun, innovative, interesting titles do terrible compared to the long running behemoths.

Developers DO take risks when they create new IPs, and honestly I think that if they take any risk at all, it should be to expand those new IPs into a franchise, even if the original didn't sell as well as their blockbuster titles. Even if the original bombed! Some developers are taking that risk (Mirror's Edge 2), and though they may be ruining their franchises in the process, at least they aren't afraid to go back and tool with old ideas.