some systems become standard for a reason
Personally, I would actually say no. In my opinion, too many games seek to add something to a well established genre. Often these things don’t turn out so well, if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. This can often be seen in control methods, when developers try out a new method of moving pixels about an environment. Of course, we have reached a point by now where controls are pretty standard. If you are familiar with one FPS for example, you can probably pick up pretty much any other almost immediately (though the first thing I seem to do in every FPS is inadvertently throw a grenade). What this means is that people can be frustrated by a demo if the controls are not the norm. Demos of games have such a short space of time to get you hooked, that if something basic doesn’t work as expected, it can often be enough to sink it. It could equally be some sort of new gameplay feature that is much touted, like Fracture’s ground modification element, or Red Faction’s destruction. The problem then becomes that if you build a game round a new and exciting feature, and that feature falls on its’ arse, then you are screwed. Fracture was a good example of this. In theory it sounded cool, changing the battlefield mid fight, creating and removing cover and so forth, in actuality all that happened is you could make small not terribly pretty and surprisingly smooth and regular divots in the ground. This sort of thing might be great in some sort of extreme golf gaming, creating bunkers when the opponent plays a shot or something, but in an FPS, forming a grassy knoll wasn’t terribly inspiring.
the ability to make small hills probably wont get you laid...
A lot of games benefit from taking well established gameplay elements, and just doing them very very well. Uncharted is a prime example, characters from Indiana Jones, cover from Gears, acrobatics from Sands of Time. Yet all the elements were done so well that it created an amazing game experience. One of my favourite games to date, Shadow Complex, is pretty much just Super Metroid with shiny new graphics and a new setting, yet I absolutely love it and am currently on my fourth play through. What this means therefore, is that originality is not absolutely vital, if you have a really solid system running through the game. Dead Space is the same, a really superb game, yet it borrows very heavily from so many other sources.
Public displays of affection are illegal in many countries.
Of course the advantage Dead Space has is that it combines all those well known elements, and adds on a new one in the form of dismemberment. This then leads me nicely to the other side of the equation, almost as if I planned it that way. New features well implemented can create an instant classic. The afore mentioned Gears of War revolutionised shooters, single handedly defining much of the current gaming scene. Dead Space takes Event Horizon and turns it into a really amazing game with a mechanic that makes every single encounter tactical and fraught with peril.
and you thought I would go for Monty Python again
This brings me to my next point. Another way to introduce innovation is to take well known genres and combine them into something new. We have seen a sudden boom in this policy with the likes of Fallout 3, Borderlands and Mass Effect. All three combine shooters with traditional RPG aspects and seek to reinvigorate the market by taking several previously entirely separate gaming methods, and working them together. The downside to this approach is that you tend to end up with the game lacking focus and depth in either area. I found Borderlands to be entertaining, but nothing special. The health bars made the shooting lackluster as you had to chip away at an enemies’ life, yet the RPG side had only a very limited upgrade tree and almost no visual customisation, which is something many RPG players really want.
What this means is that there is a very fine line to tread between innovating in games, and improving on games. Developers need to think hard about whether they are adding something new because it is an awesome idea, or whether it is just to gain some attention. I know the industry is pretty hard, it can be very difficult to stand out from the masses. So I can understand the desire for a gimmick to draw people in, but more thought needs to go into making these new toys really shine.
One game I have finished just recently is Dark Void. It was pretty poorly received, but personally I really enjoyed it. The jet pack and emphasis on vertical combat really was refreshing, and brilliant to behold. Many gaming gimmicks turn out to actually be very restricted, such as Red Faction’s destruction emphasis. They are never quite as fully integrated and free form as you hope. Yet in Dark Void you really could take to the skies any time you like, and fundamentally change the battle. Unfortunately the game petered out rather quickly after the half way point, I can only assume a serious lack of time and/or money became apparent. It is a real shame as I think there was tremendous promise, and I was very glad to have played something genuinely new and exciting. Developers need to consider whether or not they can do an idea justice. In this instance, the makers of Dark Void could not, some sort of problem must have arose. Another example of this is Fable, which, as I stated in a previous blog, never really lived up to its’ promises. Peter Molyneux had high hopes, the things he told us Fable would include were just mind blowing, and the hype was massive. Yet in the end he simply couldn’t deliver on those promises. When Fable II came round, we were told that as technology had progressed a lot since the original, many of those original promised ideas would now surface. But again, not to the extent we hoped for.
true?
As I said in my last blog, putting in a bad feature can do more damage than never including it in the first place. This drive to be new does result in some really bad mechanics being introduced that can spoil a game entirely. If you are going to do something new, make sure at the very least that the basics are thoroughly dealt with. A few months back I tried out Damnation on the PS3, having liked the look of trailers and so forth. I played that game for a grand total of about eight minutes, then gave up. Basic controls and gameplay have been pretty much perfected by now, it shouldn’t be hard to make a working game. Yet Damnation failed spectacularly, the controls were horrendous, the graphics hideous, and gameplay was last century. This leads back into my first point above about taking well established elements, and doing them well. This includes fundamentals of the game as well as other features above those. Crackdown 2 for example had a real issue with targeting, as did the Force Unleashed. Picking an enemy target is vital to every facet of games like those, it is something you have in the majority of games from the very start of gaming, the basic ability to hit what you want to hit. Yet both games suffered from a flaw to this basic necessity Crackdown loved to lock onto vehicles over the easy to kill squishy things getting out of them. The Force Unleashed seemed to want to grab every object except the one you were actually trying for. Issues like these can seriously hamper a game. A simple analogy would be like trying to create a painting using sticks dipped in paint instead of having proper brushes. You need the right basic tools for the job.
doomed to failure. thinking outside the box, not always good.
This then brings us to the question of sequels. Should a sequel seek to add something new to the established formula? Again, we come back to the ‘if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’ state of affairs. Looking to make a game bigger and better than the first is not always advisable, some games are plenty big enough to begin with. I for one often just want more of the same, if I liked the original, I want more of what it did well. Here Resident Evil 5 is a good example. Everyone loved 4, but slated 5 for adding very little. Yet I loved 4, and loved 5 too, precisely because it contained everything I loved in 4. The other risk in tweaking an existing formula is that you might remove originality, falling into sequel cliches for example. I really enjoyed Resistance 1, it was a brilliant shooter with a number of unique features. Firstly was the quarter health system. If you haven’t played it, you had a health bar (retro or what?) divided into four quarters, your health regenerated, but only to fill the quarter you were currently in, not all the way up. Likewise, in another blast from the past, you could carry as many weapons as you like. Sure, that isn’t a new feature, but these days it is rare. I greatly looked forward to Resistance 2, but what did we have? A game that introduced a weapon limitation, and removed the healthbar, going for simple regenerating after a few seconds. Resistance 2 became a shooter like every other, and I was deeply disappointed. Much as I enjoyed Mass Effect 2, I thought adding an ammo count was a step backwards for the same reasons. The overheating system in Mass Effect 1 was new and different, and really should have been kept in for 2.
In my blog on stealth games I mentioned that more games ought to include some sort of visibility meter and that is relevant here too. If something works, use it. Don’t rip off other games wholesale, but use elements that work well too. I think visibility meters should become as standard as target reticules and analogue sticks. If you are making a game, sit down and think about what you like in other games. Ask yourself whether or not that element would add to your own game, and then ask yourself if you can improve upon it too.
already as awesome as it can be...
No comments:
Post a Comment