Golden Sun Syndicate Forums: Golden Sun Syndicate Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Formulaic games vs. New approaches?

#1   Golden Legacy 

  • Can't touch this.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
    • Group: Admin
    • Posts: 6,607
    • Joined: 28-March 04
    • Gender:Male
    • Location:New York City, Boston

    Posted 02 June 2011 - 12:25 AM

    I saw this comment on an IGN article recently, and I thought it was worth discussing.

    Quote

    How can you chastise Metroid: Other M for being divergent from what we have come to expect in the franchise, yet also chastise the Zelda franchise for becoming to formulaic and repetitive. Other M was a good game, maybe a great game, but it just didn't fit in with the franchise. That is the only complaint I ever see about it. It is the same way with Majora's Mask; it diverges from the Zelda franchise, yet as a game, it really is very good. So why should a franchise risk the criticism by creating a game that breaks from the mold? You all seem perfectly content to complain about the studios for the games that they make, but I will complain about the gamers. It is your fault that the franchises do not evolve; you simply don't allow them to do anything different. And when they finally do, you sit back and complain.


    I think it's an interesting point to bring up, how gamers will complain about a series becoming too formulaic, and yet when a title is released in that series that deviates from it, it's often criticized. Should gaming studios focus on keeping their series with what works? Are gamers at fault for the reason why many series don't change much? If a gaming studio wants to change the formula for a series, should it just be released under a new title and create a new IP? Very curious as to your thoughts.

    #2   TheEnglishman 

    • Master Adept
    • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
      • Group: Veterans
      • Posts: 9,159
      • Joined: 06-April 05
      • Gender:Male
      • AKA Me111

      Posted 02 June 2011 - 01:49 AM

      Personally I prefer to see a series following a similar route and not making sweeping changes unless it's released as a game outside the main series. That's just me though.

      #3   Someone Else 

      • High Sheriff
      • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
        • Group: Moderator
        • Posts: 11,988
        • Joined: 21-July 04
        • Gender:Male
        • Location:Sitting on a fence and drinking root beer
        • AKA Wind Dude (WD)

        Posted 03 June 2011 - 12:36 AM

        My brain hurts after doing that last case in LA Noire so I'm going to try my best to articulate my thoughts here.

        I'm going to need some more example of games that are criticized for deviating from a series' formula. I've never heard anybody complain about Majora's Mask. Heck, in our circle, Majora's Mask seems to be the fairly vocal favorite. Tim and I both think so anyway.

        I haven't played Other M, so I can't offer my own opinion on that. Though Castlevania: Lords of Shadow comes to mind here. Honestly I haven't played this game either but from what I've SEEN it was a Castlevania game in name only, instead going for an action-y God of War style of play. Though this might not be a fair example either, I've only played the "Metroid-vania" style Castlevania games where it was really about exploration rather than combat.

        Anyway, it basically amounts to reaching a happy medium between introducing new things to a game, removing, and changing things that didn't work, but also staying to true to what your series is ultimately about. It's what the fans like about your game. I'd actually say that Zelda has done a good job with this in games like Wind Waker (sailing sucked ass though), Majora's Mask, and Minish Cap. Twilight Princess is guilty as sin for feeling waaay too similar to previous games though. Elder Scrolls and Total War are also both good examples, they are consistent series that you know pretty much what to expect from each game, but they all have their own identity.

        The new Tomb Raider reboot is going for a survival-horror(ish) angle when Tomb Raider has historically been an action/puzzle/platformer series. This is a pretty big departure, but honestly the series is famous for the character, not the games themselves. If they can offer a solid game while also recreating Lara's character, making her more than a vixen that swings around on a rope with dual pistols, they've got a big hit on their hands.

        #4   Caael 

        • Master Adept
        • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
          • Group: Veterans
          • Posts: 8,730
          • Joined: 09-June 06
          • Gender:Male
          • Location:England
          • Interests:EVERYTHING EVER

          Posted 03 June 2011 - 03:08 PM

          I've seen far more criticisms of Other M. Having played it myself, here's a few off the top of my head: shitty voice acting, the over emphasis on plot, the horrible character development, the simplification of gameplay.

          I'm fine if a series diverges from it's convention in a way that improves the game, IE Majoras Mask. However in Other M's case, it was a step backwards. It was a change for the worse, which makes you wonder why they bothered with the change in the first place.

          #5   Zeypher 

          • Disciple
          • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
            • Group: Members
            • Posts: 1,305
            • Joined: 02-April 08
            • Gender:Male

            Posted 04 June 2011 - 12:14 PM

            Other M wasn't a good Metroid game, but it was a great game in its own right. Here's my review.

            I think there's a double standard amongst many media outlets. A game like Call of Duty is exactly the same as its predecessor, yet they praise it for whatever reason. As for Zelda, every game has the same basic formula (dungeons, fields, etc) but they all have very different atmospheres that make them feel fresh. I would love to see more Majora's Mask style storytelling in future games, though.

            A game can use the same basic formula and still innovate -- take a look at Mario. Every 3D Mario game has been a substantial step up from the previous game (Mario 64 to Sunshine to Galaxy).

            Another example of this is what Nintendo is doing with Skyward Sword. There are still dungeons, fields, items, all that stuff we know from Zelda, but there's a higher emphasis on puzzle-like 1:1 sword combat, a denser overworld, and fields structured like dungeons.


            Page 1 of 1
            • You cannot start a new topic
            • You cannot reply to this topic