Changing gameplay in Sequels

I don't think Bethesda hates Fallout. They just failed in trying to recreate the Fallout atmosphere. If they did hate Fallout, they would NEVER of even let Obsidian make New Vegas. Besides, I think the East coast just needs to be fleshed out more in Fallout 4 for Fallout 3 to somewhat make sense (although things like crappy writing and "Superhero Gambit" can't really be fixed).

 

I wasn't serious about that though.
but what beth did at story(or plot? message?) was completely oppsite from originals.
so I'm sure they don't have much love on Fallout series but they love bibles.

 

Superhero gambit could easily be fixed, the idea of the quest is not bad (two crazies with technology trying to live out a fantasy in the Post Apocalyptic world one for good the other for chaos but both making life for the people of the town miserable with their reckless confrontations, it could work really well) But alas, it would require good writting.

 

I'm understanding your point perfectly, but your point is a question of "should" and my point is that it's NOT a matter of "should" NOR is it a matter of "should not" but that it's all an issue of "could". (Also you were addressing the wrong person by quoting my usage of false classification and responding to it with an example of bad design. My comment was addressing Gizmojunk, not you.) If your perspective is limited SOLELY to addressed what HAS been done, and therefore all you have to work with is examples of failures, then all you have to argue with is "should", and that's approaching it all wrong. It's totally valid to look at a BAD game or a game with BAD design which possessed bad qualities that specifically differed from its predecessors, which were not bad, then that's a question of "Why did the developers do it?" If Doom 3 had been a bad game, and veering off into a horror suspense direction was the source of all of its woes, it would be a legitimate question as to WHY id had chosen to change up their formula. However, and this is important, it's NOT a legitimate question to beg, "Why should it be done?" That's up to the artists to decide, not you. It's not an issue of "should" or "should not", it's an issue of "could". Done right (and that's the key point, like with your example of the list that's poorly designed, it was NOT done right) you can do anything, including changing up a sequel to be drastically different. "Burial at Sea: Ep. 2" was a Survival Horror DLC while Bioshock Infinite was an Action FPS, and the DLC was great. It didn't HAVE to be another Action FPS, nor "should" it have been. They "could" have done something different, they did do something different, and they did it well, and that's what matters.

 

Not when it's a series it's not... If you buy the first two of a set, you most certainly want the third one to match... you don't want pop-art.



When a new artist is passed the torch ~trusted with an established IP... they are not supposed to do whatever the hell they feel like with it.
It's true that [stupefyingly] people can get away with defacing a thing when they've bought it; not everywhere, but unfortunately Fallout was not protected by Interplay as a condition of the sale.

**All three of those pictures are completely different from each other, and yet the first two clearly are part of the set; while the third one is of the subject, but of a completely unrelated style, and out of place in the set.

 

Maybe not, but that still doesn't change that it's irrelevant.

What the artist wants to make is their business, not their fan's business. Again, you're underplaying the importance I'm placing on "could" versus "should" in my message. It's a matter of "they can do whatever they want", and that's an absolute. Do I expect a game with the name "Bioshock" to PLAY like previous Bioshock titles? Absolutely. In that respect, it's in the game developer's BEST INTERESTS not to fuck with that formula if they want to acquire sales on fans familiar with previous installments. That STILL does not change that, if they wish to (and if their efforts are pulled off SUCCESSFULLY), they have every right to make it completely different. I'm not talking about ownership rights, I'm talking about artistic license. It's petty and simplistic to say that JUST because it's the next numeric title in a series that it MUST play exactly the same. If the changes were shallow, it has nothing to do with the series or name recognition that those things were shallow, and everything to do with their shallowness ascribed to them, specifically.

 

It's petty to accuse someone who didn't say that. I don't think there is anyone around here or elsewhere that truly expected, or welcomed the notion of a Fallout 2.5. No the problem is that FO3 is a re-skinned copy of Oblivion with minor cosmetic changes, and a new setting [I'd say seemingly derived from a casual glance at the Fallout setting]. It's a title that neither respects the gameplay intentions, nor the roleplaying aspects, nor the founding precepts of the series... it just takes the name to sell an effectively unrelated product. Like buying a language DVD that not only isn't the language advertized, but turns out that you can't even learn a language from what's in the box... It's a Barney DVD.

As it stands ~though I bet they are slightly uncomfortable with it... InXile's Wasteland 2 is the closest thing to a real Fallout 3 that we have; (with Arcanum a close 2nd).



*** Though of course... Fallout 3 should have been nothing less than a turn based Iso/3D tactical RPG; one that let player's do as they liked... but ensured that they had to live with it ~not be forgiven in three days; or allowed to murder people in the game and make up for it by donating water to the game's homeless... And most certainly not get away with shooting BOS paladins in the face at the gates to the Brotherhood's DC bunker and return later to join up.

 

They're not normally critiqued as subjective because most people just don't take the time to recognize that they are. Even the control schemes are PART of the art. But this video addresses that far better than I. It demonstrates very succinctly how gameplay and instructions and teaching mechanics can be seamlessly and intelligently integrated into the game, and there's an art to that. Teaching through level design. Ergonomical control design. Conveyance. Theming. And at 15:48 he even brings up both the concept of "why fix what isn't broken" from prequel to sequel, and then IMMEDIATELY gameplay that changes everything. All of these concepts are not some kind of definitive absolute as part of a soulless product; they're an aesthetic to the art. The method takes creativity, not replication, inspiration, not simulation. And ALL of this is demonstrated in that video about a sequel. A sequel that CHANGED things.

Cute pictures and videos of LOTR scenes with lightsabres do nothing but underline failures and make jokes about those specific failures. They don't emphasize such overarching notions as too-many people here continue to stress that change as a whole from prequel to sequel is somehow a bad thing. The reason being because they're NOT a bad thing. A failure is still an encapsulated failure and doesn't condemn the attempt in totality. Change is not necessary, but it's an option. For fuck's sake just accept that please.

 

Not without a different name. Not many are totally against change, but too many are totally without care if it changes. Change is not bad, but total mutation is. And if it's not going to actually BE a ~for instance~ Falllout title, then it should be called something else ~same as a pipe wrench is not called a Hammer ~though some people would use either to hit a nail.

** As for the main topic: [Crni Vuk] I think it's fads like with television, movies, and toys... Somebody invents something (or rediscovers something) and makes money with it, and others build on it with the hopes of making money like the other guys did. Other times they are perhaps planning to make a game and just looking for a back-story and loose premise to adapt ~[worst and most damaging kind of developer IMO]. Other times, they may have gotten blind sided by a new trend and had to have that in their game to compete; or perhaps it was FORCED upon them [publishers]. Wasn't FO:Tactics forced to be RT ~with TB optional? And FO2 forced to include that tutorial? Van Buren would have been forced to retain the RT mode, I'm sure of it.

 

I like you Crni, you understand design.

 

I'm sorry, did you somehow read what I'd stated as me saying it WASN'T subjective? No, I was stating that it was TOTALLY subjective. I don't understand how you missed that.

A failure to recognize the subject matter. Yes, design is problem solving. That's the DEFINITION of design: creative problem solving. But that does not distinguish it from art. Unlike your rant about oblivious classmates, I'm not throwing around the term "art" in some arbitrary way because I don't understand its meaning- or more importantly, it's limitations -but because I DO understand what it is, and what you're suggesting is somehow mutually exclusive is in fact very inclusive between these 2 subjects, if you were to draw up a ven diagram of the two. Art is, by definition, the exploration of the aesthetic. Any THING that's evocative of the senses, and design is not somehow isolated from that. Did you even bother to watch the awesome video I linked that discussed innovating game designed? If you look at that and come away with the impression that it was anesthetic design produced "by the numbers" then you're simply in denial.

It sounds to me like your class experiences were just inundated by stupidity. Maybe you were living in a hipster area that just liked the sound of its own voice saying "art" rather than any understanding of the subject. In MY classes, years ago, I was taught that stopping with design wasn't enough, and if my projects had successful design execution I'd have failed the class immediately, because they required more than that. One professor was especially nitpicky (and I thank God that he was, to this day, otherwise I'd never have grown in my approach to artistic design) and he laid out a series of simplistic rules for the class at the very beginning, and as the weeks wore on and the projects kept mounting, it became clear that these simple rules applied to EVERYTHING. If we misused (or worse, simply DIDN'T use) one of the rules in line spacing, that would lower our grade, if we didn't apply it to the arrangement of our designs, if we didn't execute the rules with a standard of quality, if we didn't follow the rules in how we PRESENTED our finished products, if any ANY step of the process we didn't abide by these iron-clad rules, we'd get a lowered grade. That man was the devil, and I'm grateful to him for that. But anyway, the point being is that the BARE MINIMUM was successful design that met the requirements of solving the problem of the mission outline. That would still have been an F if we didn't include the aesthetic principles of dynamic presentation as outlined by his all-encompassing rules. Clearly, art and design had a hand in one another.

I just don't know where you get the idea that you've been saying "good design is key" and that I somehow haven't. EVERY step of the way, my stance on this whole notion of change across game titles has been an absolute "It's not a matter of should or should not, it's a matter of could, and they always can" with the immediate corollary of "provided it's done well". You bring up Skyrim as if that proves anything, whereas I could just as easily bring up Diablo III as an example of copying the same design of its excellent predecessors, yet failing as a game (and more importantly, as a work of art). So what? I've said it so many times already, but all these examples of failures ONLY underline these specific failures.

 

Every time Gizmo's added his two cents, it's appeared to me that his hang-ups regarding change across one title to the next are trivial gripes. He's stated that he's TOTALLY okay with differences..... unless they carry the same name. Why should that make such a difference? He's stated that the name carries expectations with it. Why should those expectations be absolute? My point has always been tearing down those objections for what they are: trivial.

Using FO3 as an example, it doesn't matter what form the game came in, whether it would have been "isometric" (which is a misrepresentation, because Fallout was NEVER technically isometric, nor would future installments be, with freely-adjustable camera angles set at a default top-down view) or whether it would have been first person perspective wouldn't have made ANY difference except for one: the trivial expectations of the established audience. It's a petty gripe to complain about change from top-down camera to third or first person, JUST because that's not what it always was. You were right when you pointed out that certain camera angles lend themselves better to certain genres and their functions, and if THAT was the cause for concern, those would be legitimate. But these were not those concerns. They were "but that's different, waaaaaaaah!" complaints. Pointless, because their ONLY gripe was that it was different. I'll say it again, just in case at this juncture I'm losing you: it would NOT have mattered what angle the camera was if FO3 was a good game. The key part was "a good game", and FO3 was not. Too many fans have ripped the notion of a FPS FO game to shreds PURELY because our introduction to FPS Fallout was FO3, a terrible game. That fails to recognize that it COULD have been done well, attached to a GOOD game, and the entire fanbase would have celebrated the "update". Here's your proof (granted, it's subjective): what's the greater complaint over FONV, the camera angle? No, it's the bugginess, other signs of its rushed development, the outdated engine it was forcibly tied to. The overall complaints were not of change, but rather a LACK of change. Because FONV, unlike FO3, was a fantastic game, the change in perspective is overlooked.

In his video, "A Game By Any Other Name", Jim Sterling pointed out very succinctly how gamer expectations based entirely on name recognition alone is short-sighted and in many ways childish. Like me, he places the entire emphasis of expectation on "is the game good?" Early on in the video he uses "spin off" as a pardon, but he goes on to non-spin off examples, such as FO3, to state that it's not the name that matters, it's the game you get. Watch it, it's a great video.

Again, my point has always been as such: "Game developers ALWAYS have the right to do whatever they want with the next title in a series; it's their game, not yours. You shouldn't be bothered by a sequel changing from it's prequel, you should be bothered by a sequel being a bad game. If it's a bad game, that's definitely 'a bad change', but if it's a good game, any change can be warranted."

Yes, but what's the difference, gameplay-wise? D3 is STILL a TPS dungeon crawler where movement is mouse click based (though correct me if I'm wrong, they have WASD movement as well, right?) with two giant orbs representing health and mana and you descent into more hellish terrain as the game progresses to ultimately tackle Diablo. The design is identical. Yet that's not why the game fails. Trying to take my example of foiling your reasoning and turning it on its head only solidifies the example and reaffirms the reason I even brought it up. Diablo III copied its prequel's designs down to the t, but it failed in far too many ways BESIDES the design, and that's why the game was a failure. Clearly, change could have seriously saved Diablo III had fans not been so unreasonably hell-bent (no pun intended) on receiving copies of their expectations replicated without much thought as to why.

 

It's because people associate a name with a product. If a company bought Pfizer's Viagra brand... they may love the popularity of the name... but they should not slap it on to their generic heart pill medication in the hopes of better sales, and the belief that a change in the old formula is always welcomed more than not.

*And no that's not [entirely] serious; it's an exaggerated extreme to highlight a subtle point. A game series is the game with a new story, more than it is a new game with a new story; (or indeed an old story as in the case of FO3). Look at 'Age of Wonders' the three games do not play the same, yet they are basically the same game. Look at Dawn of War and Spacemarine; they are basically the same subject, in the same universe, but are entirely different games. Spacemarine is as totally unacceptable as a 'Dawn of War 3' ~as DoW3 is were it pushed as a sequel to Spacemarine.

With Fallout we are not just [only] talking about base game mechanics and combat; it is also that most of Bethesda's 'innovations' directly contradict the base premise of the Fallout series. One being that players could do what they want, but that they have to live with it... Bethesda throws that to the wind in order to support their timeless wasteland simulation... which is what it is at its core; same as TES being a Tamriel simulation as the main immutable core of the design. But that's what TES is; that's what you are looking for when you go looking for the next TES. That was not the premise of Fallout. Fallout very bluntly made it known that the world was a dead husk, and it focused on a story within the last few human settlements (probably on Earth). Fallout was a GURPS simulation; "best you could make on PC"... after they lost the GURPS license, they tweaked the rules for a week to distance it from GURPS, but it was still the same game they had spent three years on... and that style [rightly] carried over to the sequel... because that's what Fallout means; same as the name 'rootbeer float' does not mean 'Fruit crepes with rootbeer sauce' ~regardless of how fantastic it probably tastes; it's not an improvement on 'rootbeer floats'. FO3 does not try to improve on Fallout 2, it replaces it with something else entirely, and tries to keep the name; (does keep the name ~by fiat).

I've never played Commandos, but seeing the examples, I know EXACTLY what they mean about the FPS "sequel". Did we not have the exact same thing done with FO3? I think FO3 is an impressive game, but an atrocious sequel; One cannot play Fallout on FO3. FO3's focus is pure theme-park for sake of entertaining the player in a post apoc-retro-50's wonderland. It's (in all but its grand appearance) as detached from the rest of the series as 'Whack-a-mole' is from 'Go'.

**Edit:
This was not arbitrary coincidence:


And it's nowhere to be found in FO3.

 

These complaints are not only about camera perspective, it's also gameplay what has been changed with it. First Fallout is very comfortable and relaxing game to play - we could've controlled it with mouse using single hand only. One click on a particular hex and your character is walking through the map, while you're sipping coffee and listening to great atmospheric music. Some unexpected and dangerous situation? Not a problem, turn-based combat system will pause that shit for you, so there's no need for panic. Yup, quite relaxing.

Those modern 3D FPP console ports are very different in this regard; it's adrenaline ride demanding uninterrupted focus on the screen and both hands constantly occupied with control devices.

edit:

The same goes for other board games, as Battle Tech for instance:

 

Again, trivial complaints, or otherwise completely missing the point. I explain the fallacy of name recognition expectation, and you just repeat that you're obsessed with name recognition expectation. You say so yourself in your Dawn of War versus Spacemarine example, "same subject, different game", yet you gripe ABOUT it being a different game? How can you be so inconsistent?

As far as FO3 goes, I used FO3 as an example BECAUSE it is not a good game, so your usage of FO3 being a bad game does not undermine my points in the slightest. But while you went off the deep end with your Viagra analogy, pointless though it was, you found a new dimension of absurd with your "rootbeer float vs fruit crepes with rootbeer sauce" analogy. This is NOT an issue of name recognition but an issue of name definition. That argument does not fit. If you're suggesting that this crepes notion was called a "rootbeer float", that would not have been a problem because of expectation, but a problem that this is not what a rootbeer float IS, by definition. Fallout is NOT "fallout" by definition, because it is a computer game, not a radioactive airborne particle, get it? Name recognition is thinking tissue paper when you hear "Kleenex", even though the object ISN'T a "Kleenex" it's a tissue paper, because that's brand recognition. The same is true of thinking a taped bandage when "bandaid" is heard. A rootbeer float is not a brand, it's a defined name for a thing. There is no "float" relative to rootbeer in your example, whereas the ice cream IS the float, hence how non-rootbeer variants still retain the same name, e.g. ice cream with coke is called a "coke float", ice cream with orange soda is called "orange float", etc. This is not a brand, this is a defined name. Something else using the same name does not clash because of the expectation but because the definition does not match.

 

I can't help but notice that you are the only one actively deriding and belittling (your opponents!?) opposing arguments; have you considered (even once) to examine an argument and [without insult] try seeing why they would bother to type it as a means of explaining a point of view, and what that person is trying to impart. You do not even seem to ponder the other person's example for even an instant... and just label it with insult. Have others here insulted you?

You spit my examples back at me (with derision) and show not the slightest understanding of them; rather it truly appears [to me] that if an example does not fit with your perception of a thing ~it's not only wrong, but it's an avenue for sarcastic put downs.

You mention 'DoW vs. Spacemarine', and how I seem to (incredulously?) gripe about it being a different game ~and that that is inconsistent? Clearly you did not read it, I think; but if you did, then I say to you that you must surely not have understood the point of the example.

I do think that in some cases it really is a lack of comprehension about why something is important. In other cases it may be a real understanding about why an important aspect cannot be risked in the new game. If you had nonograms and math puzzles as an important part in a previous game (that you've now acquired ~for some inexplicable reason ), but let's say, you understand that your main demographic won't know, won't care, and won't tolerate the challenge... well you can make it [even more] cartoon science, and not really part of the challenge anymore; not even par with FO3's hacking minigame ~which I kind of liked on its own merit; though I thought it quite out of place in a roleplaying game.

Look at Watchdogs. The game seems arguably about hacking and intrusion... but unlike even Uplink's [stylized hacking]... this game makes it a simple CSI/NCIS animation lightshow and re-uses old plumbing/water pipe style puzzles to represent computer hacking Hollywood style, because the intended audience is interested in only the results of empowerment though button clicking, rather than the accomplishment hacking itself. Different audience... different [salable] gameplay. Nothing wrong with that in Watchdogs, but imagine if Watchdogs WAS Uplink 2.

I also think that some people simply take the position that 'that's not how games are done for today's audience', and they adapt the gameplay to suit the consumer. I don't think anything is wrong with using new or more familiar/suitable gameplay for a modern game... but that tack has never given a clear explanation of why someone would scrape the barrel for a famous name to give their (new) game some sort of history and reputation. IMO they should not bother because new players (whom they are tailoring the game to) likely have no recollection or understanding of details from the previous games; and it is the original fans that will come for the name ~and get pissed off by the bait & switch. It really seems like a disingenuous way to make money... I'd like to see Bethesda make "Knights of Xentar 2", just for the wild laugh at the results ~~and to see the massive sales they would get for their re-imagined/ open world/ realtime/ sandbox/ learn-by-doing/ T for Teen, version of it.