Changing gameplay in Sequels

Discussion in 'General Gaming and Hardware Forum' started by Crni Vuk, Jun 8, 2014.

  1. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    Nay, I was ALWAYS addressing the "why" of it. That being "because they can". To cite a lovely quote from the FMA series: "Reasons are always simple." The better question is "Why DON'T they always?" I brought up great examples earlier, but let me repeat a few of them. What would Hexen have been if it didn't change things from Heretic? Well it would have been a good game, because at the time "Doom clones" were all the rage, and they were beloved. They were NOT bad games nor complained about being too prevalent. But it wouldn't have been the same Hexen that we received. It arguably would have been not as good as what we got. Then again, some other thing we can't even comprehend might have been better, too. The same could be said of had Maga Man X not made such drastic changes from the previous formula of the ENTIRE established Mega Man franchise. If Call of Duty never popularized a previously unfavorable approach to FPS in 2008 with the revolutionary and wildly successful COD4. All of these were major changes in direction for their associated franchises. BUT... it's important to recognize that these questions are all hypothetical, and that we actually got what we got, however much of it was through deliberate change, not simply evolution of the medium or improvement of technique.

    The simple point being the opportunity is there, and if it can be capitalized upon, go for it! That's the why of it. If change is attempted, and failed at, we shouldn't beg the question "Why change anything ever", we should analyze what it was that failed in particular. What was bad about changing from free-exploration (maze) level design rocket-jumping shooters to "modern shooters" where the progress is determined more by AI advancements and less by player involvement? Don't lambast the change, discern what was a problem.

    Step off your high horse you soap box preaching twat. See that? THAT'S an insult. Where have I ever insulted you prior to this (and bear in mind, this "insult" serves as a lesson; it isn't even a genuine insult)? Where have I ever been sarcastically derisive to you? When have I ever resorted to quippy put downs? Please, enumerate or otherwise qualify your baseless accusations. "Trivial" is not an insult to you, unless you possess some inferiority fear of being labeled trivial. "Inconsistent" is not an insult, it's pointing out your haphazard relationship with consistency and a tendency for self-contradiction. I say it like it is, and I'm blunt and forthright when I do it. There's no subtext with me, when I address another human being. There's never any ounce of insult, sarcasm, or any of that nonsense you're projecting onto me. You may not LIKE it, but that's your business, not mine, and not liking it certainly means squat with respect to whether I'm insulting you or not.

    Have I ever called you names? Have I ever attacked you? Have I ever misquoted you to make a joke out of you? Have I EVER laughed at you or your posts? The answers to all of these questions are a resounding: no. No, I've only ever sternly disagreed with you. I've objected to your assertions, and I've rebound against your stubborn refusal to acknowledge when I make a sound point. Does that make me a self-entitled know-it-all? No, that just means I voice a point when I'm assured of its validity. I say it many times, but I'll repeat it to you, I DO state (and this is not a joke) that, "It's easy to never be wrong: I just keep my mouth shut if I don't know for absolutely certain." If you interpret that to be incredulous and arrogant, you would again be marvelously mistaken. It's a self-humbling practice, because I have to refrain from speaking out if I don't know something. I have to discipline myself against attacking everything I do not like or want to disagree with until I know... know beyond a shadow of a doubt... that what I can say is factually accurate.

    From my perspective, the one tossing insults and sarcasm is you. Yet have I ever levied that accusation against you? No, because it's quite possibly a misunderstanding on my part. A courtesy you've never seen fit to grant me, by the way.

    What I CAN do is deviate from my normal approach, because apparently I'm too subtle. I typically DO NOT highlight an entire post, or a large chunk of it, because I agree with it and I wish to sing its praise. But because I don't do that, you seem to think all I have are negativity and hatred and opposition. Vis a vis:
    See, THIS is all a good set of points. Granted, they're grounded in contemporary examples, but they're still good points. Having not played Watchdogs yet (though wishing I could, I simply do not own a next gen console and my PC needs replacing before I get newer games), I can't comment on its particulars from experience, though based on your description it DOES remind me of some of the changes/improvements from Bioshock to Bioshock 2, in particular, the hacking minigame (thus the connection). In BS1, you could access any object that could be hacked, assuming you hadn't hacked it already, and it would pause the game. All combat would cease and resume only once the hacking minigame was completed (or failed). On top of being absurdly impractical with respect to suspension of disbelief, it was also highly exploitable, as certain Tonics (player upgrades) would grant free health upon hacking completion, and failing a hack could never be lethal despite otherwise causing harm to the player. So hacking was a free pause of the action that could give you health and other freebies. Really nasty when abused, on top of just being kinda silly, cause it was all just a plumbing minigame. BS2 changed this up to be a much more simplistic "hit the button when the moving cursor is directly above the green or the blue bars" minigame that COULD be attempted in combat but did not pause the action so it lent itself more to stealthy approaches; fitting for a hacking theme, wouldn't you say? This moved away from the "aquatic" themes that repeated throughout the first Bioshock, but it was largely a welcomed improvement.

    Another major reason that change between game titles is undergone right now, in contemporary gaming, is the minimalization of the art form itself in favor of the market model. It's not a bad thing to pursue good business strategy, but when that overrides all other decisions in the creation of a work of art, that invites homogenization. The veritable "melting-pot" of gaming, where games begin to blend their mechanics with other, "more popular" titles. Hence why there are so fucking god damned many gunmetal grey wartime first person shooters. Everything I've said up until this last paragraph is still true, but those largely hold to the ideal and past examples, and this is all the more recent trend in gaming. I've still voiced before that what's going on now is NOT what I'm supporting, it's at best a bastardization of the process and a stark failure to accomplish what it rightly ought to, and at worst..... myeh.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2014
  2. mobucks

    mobucks As a goof Orderite

    May 22, 2010
    That reply broke my scroll wheel.
     
  3. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Half-way Through My Half-life

    Nov 26, 2007


    The hell it's not; and there is no self contradiction ~it's you [your assumptive misunderstanding of points thought plain]. You blanket dismiss and trivialize the other persons argument. It's always a jab with you (or so it seems to me ~so far). You assert your understanding of everything the other person says, while proving you don't understand them, and that you miss their points, blinded by false leaps and assumptions of what they are trying to impart.

    For example:
    This is so off point that I have difficulty pretending to understand what it's trying to say. The point was that they are indeed different games, and can both be really good games ~while not being really good sequels to each other; (which thankfully they are not trying to be).


    The point of this topic ~as I understand it~ is questioning the reasons (and/or logic!?), behind gutting an established title and replacing it with a mechanically unrelated one ~as the sequel... Instead of either expanding upon the established [now series'] game-play, or simply selling the new title as something else entirely. shrug_zps707e891c.gif

    Hexen was tagged, "Beyond Heretic"... Hexen was not called 'Heretic 2'. You may not think there is a distinction, but there is.

    And with Commandos 3... Why would anyone [developers] assume that their game would benefit from the association with Commandos 2 ~when it doesn't seem to have the least bit in common mechanically. There is a curious parallel here with Duke Nukem 1 & 2 and Duke Nukem 3D... But of course there is no Duke Nukem 3; DN3D is a play on words and an entirely new game starring the Duke Nukem character. If anything, Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project could have been a rightful "Duke Nukem 3". Before responding (if you choose to), can you at least try to see the reasons behind this point of view without labeling it a fallacy or somehow 'inconsistent'. 'Cause I can tell you that it's neither. There has always been method to my points; what you seem to take as madness.

    This requires an in depth explanation and examples to be taken seriously. I'm open to a convincing argument on it, but I'll admit that I just don't see the truth in it if it's there.

    I don't insult your points; in fact I can see them explained in your posts and understand your [what I think is your] point of view from them. It is that the assumptions though. You are arguing against what you think is my point or opinion ~when maybe it's not. Small wonder you might think it inconsistent.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2014
  4. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    pretty much this, yeah. Although, I do understand somewhat why a team like Bethesda made their changes with F3. They simply adapted Fallout to their Elderscrolls formula. That is somewhat understandable, considering that it is afterall a completely different team. But like I said, there are sometimes 2 games, made more or less by the same team, but the Sequel is a complete change in mechanics. Commandos is a good example for this, from Commandos 1 to 2 and 3 it was a constant improvement on the mechanics and the gameplay behind it. Each sequel offered you more options, more characters to work with, the Spy, the Sapper, Snipers etc. all got more tools to use in the game, for example, new ways to distract soldiers, like throwing a packet of ciggarets in their path, which the soldiers would pick up and smoke, leaving their position, giving you enough time to exploit it. Or throwing stones, using radios or other objects to distract them. And then all of sudden Commandos 4 became a first person shooter.
     
  5. Ilosar

    Ilosar Vault Fossil

    Apr 20, 2010
    Yeah, I perfectly understand what Gizmo means. Fallout 3 wasn't in the same vein as the previous two games (beyond a generic ''RPG'' classification and the same post-apocalyptic setting stretched a lot) and thus he considers it an awful sequel. I happen to disagree on that last point and still do think it's a sequel, even if not a really good one, but his point is pretty clear. We can disagree without being pedantic arses, can we?

    A more interesting comparison, IMO, is between Fallout 1 and 2 and New Vegas. NV might not be the same game at first glance, but it has a gameplay philosophy that makes it very much a Fallout game even if it doesn't play the same way or look similar. It might not be the dreamn Fallout game some fans wanted (cough Van Buren) but it's still a worthy entry in the franchise.

    I mean, FO3 and NV at least were still RPGs, or claimed to be with reasonable degrees of accuracy. At least the franchise didn't get the Syndicate treatment of being turned into a straight up corridor FPS and managed to keep some of its roots when it was handed over to Bethesda.

    The Dawn of War vs Space Marine comparison is apt. It's the same setting, same developer, but if Relic has tried to pass of SM as DoW3, eyebrows would be raised all the way to the Eye of Terror. It's just not the same gameplay at all, and the fans of Dawn of War don't want to see the RTS franchise suddendly turned in a third-person shooter, no matter the qualities of Space Marine itself. Just like if, say, Bungie had tried to pass off Halo Wars as Halo 4 or something, the fans of the Halo FPS franchise would have been peeved. A sequel can change the gameplay to a point; it cannot change the genre, of that I'm certain. IMO FO3 did the former almost to a breaking point; it was still an RPG, but just barely the style of RPG you expect from Fallout. If Bethesda has the next Elder Scrolls game be, say, a semi-linear Bioware-style party based RPG, you can bet your arse its fanbase would be angry. Hell, they were still angry when another studio made an MMO out of the franchise, even when the main Elder Scrolls games were basically offline MMOs themselves.
     
  6. woo1108

    woo1108 Vault Senior Citizen

    Sep 27, 2012
    What about misunderstanding?
    If a game is great, there might be a reason about that.
    But there aren't many people understand properly about that.
    Most of people just look at the shells of that good points.
    What makes Fallout a great RPG? Atmosphere? Writing? Graphic? Rule? Setting?

    Troika created one of the greatest RPG: Arcanum without atmosphere of Fallout.

    Due to lack of technology, Wasteland doesn’t have much good dialog. But it's still one of greatest RPG ever and became ancestor of Fallout.
    And actually, fancy dialogs of Fallout is not only a good point. Dialog option can be an obstacles for reasoning since the answers are given in dialog options.

    Rule of Fallout is actually, unbalanced. But that doesn't make Fallout flawed.

    Setting of Fallout is interesting. Some said Fo2 ruined setting or fo3 ruined setting etc.
    but fiction is fiction. It is possible to create great RPG without fancy setting. and flaw of setting doesn't make game bad. and good setting doesn't always mean good game.

    developers like Obsidian and the late Troika knows well about that while beth, fo3 fanboys, core RPG fans and even the core Fallout fans like us didn't catch. And that's the reason why they can make good Fallout-like RPGs.

    But most people misunderstand about that.
    So, most of people just copy the atmosphere of Fallout, setting of Fallout, rule of Fallout and story of Fallout. What’s the point of copying those feature? They have possibility of copying Fallout.
    But they can't create Fallout, they can't create better game than Fallout while developers who understand sprit of Fallout can do.

    What about RPG? Is the dragonquest or final fantasy were created with comprehension of what is RPG? Developers of them were just copied shell of real RPGs. that's the reason most of jrpgs can't be a RPG. They just copied leveling system and combat system of Wizardry or Ultima. And leveling system and combat system really matters for those game? no.
    there are tons of copy of Wizardry in Japan but most of them are just about hack and slash and item farming while Wizardry was about dungeon itself.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2014
  7. AskWazzup

    AskWazzup Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Aug 21, 2008
    Can someone write a shorthand version of what was discussed here?
     
  8. woo1108

    woo1108 Vault Senior Citizen

    Sep 27, 2012
    about why there are tons of call-of-duty kind of things with the name of great games?
     
  9. mobucks

    mobucks As a goof Orderite

    May 22, 2010
    money, it's a drag.
     
  10. 5545Trey

    5545Trey Underground Deviant

    625
    Jun 25, 2014
    There is nothing wrong with changing gameplay in sequels, as long as the company does not replace the elements that worked in the first game.
     
  11. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    Does art even actually exist? Nowadays art is just the catch all term for every thing anyone does ever to shield away from criticism.
     
  12. 5545Trey

    5545Trey Underground Deviant

    625
    Jun 25, 2014
    You will be surprised how many ways people avoid criticism.
     
  13. Makagulfazel

    Makagulfazel Adept Bungler of Things Orderite

    Jun 14, 2007
    ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzz

    Maybe it's because a fraction of people bitch no matter what they are given. Or the developers get lambasted in reviews for not innovating. Or the publishers want to appeal to a larger audience(console users). The "Why" could be several answers.
    Concerning inventory specifically; Baldur's Gate/Jagged Alliance/Fallout have lame inventory schemes.. "Let's Play inventory management" should be the name of playthroughs. I'm willing to suspend disbelief that my character can only hold 16 fuckin' battleaxes plus the shit they have equipped for a system where I don't have to worry about some grid-based limit. I'm playing a game, not some simulator where my character's carry limit is ridiculous anyway, yet still brilliantly cumbersome and annoying. To be fair, Fallout wasn't terrible; just had too small of a viewing window. I'd take Fallout 3/NV's inventory system over it any day; sorry that categories are somehow difficult for you to navigate.
     
  14. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    It worked fairly enough thanks to the keyboard shortcuts though.
    I missed those sweet item images so much! That monochromatic list makes it unsalted somewhat, I felt like some warehouse keeper poking around with MS Excel.
     
  15. Makagulfazel

    Makagulfazel Adept Bungler of Things Orderite

    Jun 14, 2007
    I can get that some people want item images, but I still think it's kinda weird to hinge onto since you can actually see the detail in the items in modern games by viewing the item within the world. The descriptions are nice, though, to at least let you know where the item originated from in the case it's a unique item. OH WAIT! You typically find out from descriptions you are presented within the world, instead of your character being a lore master or acting like each item has a tag on it chronicling its existence. To me, it's complaining that the artist isn't sitting there telling you all about the painting; who cares? Leave it up to imagination or interpretation if it isn't spelled out to you within the game world; that's what you'd have to do in a real world scenario anyway(for those obsessed with realism).
    I'm not just playing devil's advocate here; I hate "playing" games where 15%+ of my time is spent doing inventory management. An example of a good inventory system is Divinity: Original Sin. You want to make strength a bit more useful by increasing my carry weight? Sure. But when someone comes along trashing the system because a set of plate mail fits in the same inventory slot as a necklace, I have a hard time beating my record of how fast my eyes will roll. There are some sort options, although they're somewhat lacking(e.g. Sort by item type).
    I love the argument that categories are hard to navigate, though. I'm glad you're not a game developer if you truly think that system is worse than the grid-based crap.
     
  16. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Good that Baldurs Gate 2 gave you a few ways how to deal with the problem.



    As far as JA2 goes. Well the micro-management is one of the strong points of the game. I certainly dont want that in D3 or comparable games obsessed with loot, that's obvious, but for games like JA, its a part of the gameplay.

    I am a bit perplexed how you can call the interface in F3/NV ... good over the many icon-based inventory systems. If done well, those are easy to use and very straight forward. That is the advantage of icons over just plain text in a list its very easy to memorize and identify. A necklace looks like a necklace, and armor or weapons are very easy to identify, even without categories, icons simply are superior as long you keep the icons simple enough and design them in a way that they always tell you the correct informations, where you have a couple of icons for axes but different colours tellingl you if something is either normal, magical or even exceptional, icons simply offer you so much more then just simple text. Diablo 3 would be a very good example for that, since the inventory system is doing a pretty decent job, even if I believe that the icons for items had a better style in D2 - but that just by the way, the game makes it very easy to navigate trough the items, to identify rare from legendary/unique items, considering how focused the game on loot is, it needs a good inventory layout/design. Could you imagine Diablos inventory system without icons and just lists like in F3, where you have to navigate trough? Not to mention that F3s/Skyrims inventory was cleary designed with the console in mind. Creating a list and simply slapping categories on it and calling it a day doesnt cut it. Not to mention you can have as well categories even with icons. Both Fallout 3 and Skyrim are good examples of that, since its very hard to tell just from the looks if the sword in your pocket is now magical or just some ordinary garbage.

    I've had 3 years of education here, which also included interface design and usability, and I find that move to just plain text a bit silly. How do they say, a picture is worth a thousand words
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2014
  17. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Half-way Through My Half-life

    Nov 26, 2007
    But that includes the gameplay, the gameplay is likely the reason to buy a sequel. It's why you would pick a Dawn of War 3 over a SpaceMarine 3.

    I mean... if one's kid asked for another dog, would they be given a snake? ("It's like a dog, but it eats less and can't get a broken leg! :)")

    **Should a game called "Monopoly 2" be about ISPs and selling abusive phone plans?
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2014
  18. 5545Trey

    5545Trey Underground Deviant

    625
    Jun 25, 2014
    I have never heard of those games, but I do agree with your point. I was tired when I made that post, so I may have come off as ignorant.
     
  19. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    @Makagulfazel:
    Yes, the categories filter is quite useful, it makes that shit much more bearable. In fact, I find it useful in Fallout: Tactics too, despite its icon-based inventory screen.

    I do prefer item images for two reasons.
    First, they're much faster and easier to recognize for me at quick glance, than endless text-based list full of similar looking terms. Perhaps it's just a language barrier, I'm sure that list seems to be more comprehensive for a native English speakers. Second, visualized items makes it feel more personal and very satisfying for my imagination, browsing through it feels like you're shuffling in your bag full of items actually.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2016
  20. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    I'm seeing a trend with you, lately. Not that your points don't have any relevance, but I think you're attributing a cynicism too ell-encompasingly to subjects that have an abundance of exceptions to the rule. Like you said elsewhere, sure it's a cop-out response to avoid having a lack of anything substantive to say if you just go "the writing reads like really bad fan fiction", but that doesn't mean all statements with those words are equally hollow. Sure, people will shield themselves from criticism by claiming "it's art!" but that doesn't make art nonexistent, nor does that say anything about art. Furthermore anyone who shields themselves from criticism by claiming "art" are approaching art in the wrong way. Art is MEANT to be criticized... that's the point.

    Anyway, to answer your question, of course it actually exists. Art is the exploration of the aesthetic (as opposed to anesthetic), deliberately approaching senses, thought, feeling, emotion, etc. Hipsters pretending to be artists and undermining the word doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's just a trend that you're taking notice of where people will apply the word without understanding its implications. It's the same thing as any moment where some kiddo learns a new thing and then uses it in the wrong way. Hey, just learned what logical fallacy is, better use that in the next conversation you find yourself in! Hey, just learned the term "straw man", better use that to shut someone down, whether or not it actually applies. Hey, just heard someone walk away from a dispute by uttering the words "agree to disagree", better use that the next time you're losing an argument! Etcetera etcetera.