Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Innovation Versus Formulaic Gameplay
#5
(04-01-2014, 08:49 PM)E-Man Wrote: Basically, when creating a sequel, you need to preserve what made to original very great and build up on it in areas that would benefit the most from it.

This sentence right here. The usual problem though, is that these "areas" aren't clearly defined, and developers sometimes pick the wrong ones. In LoZ: Spirit Tracks, they hit the nail on the head. Remake PH with a new story, train instead of a boat, new items (as is always necessary in Zelda sequels), and fix all the problems that PH had. Other games don't really do it that well.

Completely new, innovative ideas are always good, in my opinion. Maybe the games themselves aren't that great, but I think it's always good to try out new things. Sometimes it fails, sure, but that means that you then know that it doesn't work, and you can either ditch it or think of ways to improve it. That's how any great idea grows. Mario was innovative when it started.
That's why I love indie games, they often try to do something new. Sometimes it doesn't quite work out as well as it could have, but some really awesome ideas get out that can really redefine what a game is.

The biggest issue with innovation, especially with big companies, is that they can lose quite a bit if it doesn't sell. Indie developers don't really have such a big problem (since they usually develop their games fairly cheaply, at least in comparison to big companies), but they will still have wasted a lot of time and resources if it doesn't work out.
You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing that we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down. -Mary Pickford
Thanked by: E-Man, recme


Messages In This Thread
Innovation Versus Formulaic Gameplay - by Koh - 04-01-2014, 07:37 PM
RE: Innovation Versus Formulaic Gameplay - by Koh - 04-01-2014, 08:27 PM
RE: Innovation Versus Formulaic Gameplay - by puggsoy - 04-01-2014, 11:37 PM

Forum Jump: