Support NeoGAF

[The artful mincer]

So let's do a food analogy. Let's say you have a really good curry house in your village. It's the only one in your village and it's been around for years you can always rely on it for an Indian on Friday night. There's other take aways in your village Pizzas, Chinese etc which you like but sometimes you just want a curry.

Then one day you come in and there's no curry on the menu,they are just serving pizza. You ask "hey why you no longer serving curry?"The owner replys "hey dude you may have loved our curry but try our pizza man its the best pizza in the village!"

Now I think you would be completely justified in thinking" Mother fucker I don't care how good your pizza is where's my fucking curry I don't want fucking pizza! I can get pizza anywhere!

Which leads me back to games! I have seen this sentiment that when games in long running franchises change a lot it's unfair to judge it based on previous games. You should judge it on what it is not what'the other games were.

"The only thing that matters is if it's good"

I say Bollocks to that! You can't just be good your game needs an identity you need a unique selling point! Yes franchises need to evolve but they need to maintain their identity. If you change too much just start a new franchise.

Let's take RE4 as an extreme example. Unquestionably an all time classic BUT the older games offered experiences that it didn't and it arguably led the franchise down a dark path up to 6.

To sum up it's completely valid to critique a game based on previous entries or if it changes too much and sometimes I just want a curry, fuck pizza.

What you think GAF!?

 

[MarkMe2525]

I don't know, I would probably be ok with the pizza

Edit: A games uniqueness does impact my perception of any given title.

 

[West Texas CEO]

I just want a curry fuck pizza.

WHAT

 

[MarkMe2525]

WHAT

I prefer a pineapple fuck pizza

 

[Kuranghi]

Yeah fuck pizza!

 

[West Texas CEO]

I prefer a pineapple fuck pizza

My go-to is an anchovy fuck pizza.

 

[Kuranghi]

WHAT

I just want a curry, fuck pizza.

Grammar confusion? Fixed it.

Unless he was actually saying he wanted a "curry fuck pizza" which could be some sexual fetish I'm not familiar with.

 

[tamago84]

I enjoyed reading your analogy, i want curry now

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

I think FFXVI is a good stand-alone game. I gave it a 7/10. As an RPG I'd give it a 2/10. Nothing wrong with judging games based on what made them, as long as you can still view the game on its own merits.

 

[Kuranghi]

I prefer a pineapple fuck pizza

If it tastes like pineapple I kick them into the bathtub for a good scrub down.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I prefer a pineapple fuck pizza

Pineapple fuck curry is better.

 

[West Texas CEO]

I enjoyed reading your analogy.

I think you might be the only one.

 

[Chukhopops]

I was not expecting the example to be about RE4 when I read the thread.

I think in the end the only question is, is the pizza actually good and brings something unique? Was the change worth it?

Or did the restaurant start doing pizza just because they thought it’s what people wanted, resulting in something that may be decent but won’t stand out in the long run?

 

[West Texas CEO]

And fuck Steph Curry's pizza.

 

[Robb]

Not sure if that’s the case. Does Tetris have an identity? That game is aces.

 

[The artful mincer]

I was not expecting the example to be about RE4 when I read the thread.

I think in the end the only question is, is the pizza actually good and brings something unique? Was the change worth it?

Or did the restaurant start doing pizza just because they thought it’s what people wanted, resulting in something that may be decent but won’t stand out in the long run?

Well I guess RE4 was unique at the time but the next games in the series weren't and ended up being generic 3rd person shooters.

 

[Kuranghi]

I do think its frustrating but its more complex with games because the technology is always evolving in more ways than say film, so while fans might be disappointed with big genre changes maybe the devs are like "oh finally I can make it how I wanted it back then/how I dreamed it could be" and that just doesn't line up with what old fans want. Ultimately its their "art"... but its also a product to provide entertainment, that entertainment has certain expectations AND its not unusual thats its just not even the same devs anymore.

In the case of it being totally different devs then its both fair and unfair to make big changes because on one hand they are sort of just riding on the coat tails of the name and the legacy that old fans create and sustain but also its their vision now so they might not want what the og devs did. Its very complicated and I don't think you can say one way whether a games identity must change or stay identical because they are simultaneously pieces of art and consumable products.

 

[Hudo]

Your village sucks ass.

 

[March Climber]

Can someone please tell me if I'm reading into things wrong?

OP's post is about keeping things the same and consistent, but his title implies it's about making sure an experience is unique and new.

He then uses Resident Evil 4 as a bad example of not staying consistent, yet at the same time RE 4 IS a game with a unique identity, as it literally defined a ton of third person shooters and horror games that came after it.

What am I missing?

 

[Wildebeest]

All developers have to be able to cut through the noise of all the other games being released. If they seem to be just doing the same thing over and over when other things are a fad, then they face a backlash. If you look at Supergiant a lot of the fans of Bastion felt super bummed out by the more tactical gameplay in Transistor, they made a sport game that didn't really please fans of either, but their Roguelite Hades was a big hit. Still, they kept an identity of making these top-down twin stick type games with a recognisable art and music style. Could they have just made all their games updates of Bastion's gameplay? Probably.

 

[Clear]

To sum up it's completely valid to critique a game based on previous entries or if it changes too much and sometimes I just want a curry, fuck pizza.

What you think GAF!?

Isn't this like saying you should always judge a book by its cover?

 

[struggler_guts]

You're talking in regards to sequels in a series?

 

[The artful mincer]

Can someone please tell me if I'm reading into things wrong?

OP's post is about keeping things the same and consistent, but his title implies it's about making sure an experience is unique and new.

He then uses Resident Evil 4 as a bad example of not staying consistent, yet at the same time RE 4 IS a game with a unique identity, as it literally defined a ton of third person shooters and horror games that came after it.

What am I missing?

Silly analogy aside I feel developers should be aware of what is unique (Not necessarily new)about there franchise etc and maintain that when evolving over time. As this is likely what keeps alot of their fans interested.

It was made in response to the argument that as long as a game is good it doesn't matter if it throws away old design ideas or features. My argument is its fine for fans to be disappointed if those features ideas are missing even if the new game is really good.( I.e. it doesn't matter how tasty your pizza is if I want a curry )

I Chose RE4 not beacuse its good but because its an all time great but the main point still stands.

In Hindsight perhaps RE4 was a poor choice to as it was certainly unique in 2005 and maintained some of the RE core identity. I probably should have chose 5 or 6 to make the point lol.

Having said that I still that 4 feels really different to the OGs,7 and Remake 2 and its fine for fans to prefer those games

Does that make sense lol

 

[The artful mincer]

You're talking in regards to sequels in a series?

Yes.

 

[The artful mincer]

Isn't this like saying you should always judge a book by its cover?

I don't think so. Why do you say that?

 

[Clear]

I don't think so. Why do you say that?

I think there's a reasonable expectation for consumers to be aware of more than just the brand of the products they buy. If a new entry in a series is a massive departure from what's gone before, then so long as its not marketed deceptively in terms of value equivalence, then the onus should be on the buyer to make their choice an informed one. Or be prepared to adapt to the new direction.

I mean, for an example of what I consider to be "good" deception, Evil Dead 2 departing from the seriousness of the original movie into a much more campy, comedic style seems fair to me. "Bad" deception would be more like somebody marketing a micro-budgeted indie movie as a blockbuster epic - because in that instance the viewer is getting less than what they were expecting, not something that's simply different.

 

[SHA]

So let's do a food analogy. Let's say you have a really good curry house in your village. It's the only one in your village and it's been around for years you can always rely on it for an Indian on Friday night. There's other take aways in your village Pizzas, Chinese etc which you like but sometimes you just want a curry.

Then one day you come in and there's no curry on the menu,they are just serving pizza. You ask "hey why you no longer serving curry?"The owner replys "hey dude you may have loved our curry but try our pizza man its the best pizza in the village!"

Now I think you would be completely justified in thinking" Mother fucker I don't care how good your pizza is where's my fucking curry I don't want fucking pizza! I can get pizza anywhere!

Which leads me back to games! I have seen this sentiment that when games in long running franchises change a lot it's unfair to judge it based on previous games. You should judge it on what it is not what'the other games were.

"The only thing that matters is if it's good"

I say Bollocks to that! You can't just be good your game needs an identity you need a unique selling point! Yes franchises need to evolve but they need to maintain their identity. If you change too much just start a new franchise.

Let's take RE4 as an extreme example. Unquestionably an all time classic BUT the older games offered experiences that it didn't and it arguably led the franchise down a dark path up to 6.

To sum up it's completely valid to critique a game based on previous entries or if it changes too much and sometimes I just want a curry, fuck pizza.

What you think GAF!?

I think addiction lead us to a point where we couldn't tell unless beating the 6th sequel of the series in a very short period of time, at this point, we become sick of the whole thing, literally, cause no matter what you think, you can't expect a perfect outcome from the whole thing since it started, making changes isn't perfect either, but it keeps the series alive for new and older players.

 

[The artful mincer]

I think there's a reasonable expectation for consumers to be aware of more than just the brand of the products they buy. If a new entry in a series is a massive departure from what's gone before, then so long as its not marketed deceptively in terms of value equivalence, then the onus should be on the buyer to make their choice an informed one. Or be prepared to adapt to the new direction.

I mean, for an example of what I consider to be "good" deception, Evil Dead 2 departing from the seriousness of the original movie into a much more campy, comedic style seems fair to me. "Bad" deception would be more like somebody marketing a micro-budgeted indie movie as a blockbuster epic - because in that instance the viewer is getting less than what they were expecting, not something that's simply different.

Ah okay I'am not really concerned about marketing although I guess if you're changing stuff you should be honest about it.

My argument is based purely on the expectation that you've played and finished the game.

E.g. I was fully aware of the changes in FF16 and went in willing to give it a chance. On finishing it I feel it cut out the series unique selling points and the changes resulted in it feeling more generic. It was a well made and good action game though.

 

[winjer]

Maybe a game can identify as being good.

 

[BbMajor7th]

I don't know. I want a game to be well-designed, performant and hopefully have a few original ideas. Do I want games to boldly stand apart and do things their own way? For sure. Do I think that will mean the same thing to everybody? Not really.

That said, the pizza and curry analogy seems to undermine the premise - these are very generic dishes you can find anywhere in the UK. I'd rather have something that doesn't just emulate the already well-established and over-subscribed (even if it does it very well) - I'd rather have something that tries something new, or something that few others are trying.

 

[crackajack]

agree, games not only need an interesting identity, but once they have one doing some reinventing themselves stunt is bad.

Started recently Max Payne 3 after having it in my library for years and I don't know if I should like it or hate it.
It appears like a good game, just not like a Max Payne game. It's Max Payne with a GTA or Kane & Lynch coating. Max Payne was (mainly about bullet time of course, but) also about the story telling in the comics, probably because it was cheaper to make, but the whole narration was much more focused on the said words and the pictures were restrained while heavily stylized and a whole other thing than the rather conventional cutscenes in this. Also the sunny vibrant new location, feels wrong, replacing the dark depressing color scheme. His depressive talk and people depending on and hiring him feels weird, despite him being for some reason still capable as ever even though he sounds like an old wreck and not some younger cop out for vengeance anymore.
It's overall not even unrealistic and can't argue that it isn't a possible future for Max after part 2, but it feels like a very different game. Kinda like if Alan Wake would have just been called Max Payne 3. Max loves his monologues and why shouldn't he just become a writer, finding a new wife and a new passion...

RE4 should have been a proper spin off and not 4.
Very much like CoD4, which the series kinda did with the following games using CoD as the umbrella term and numbering the Ghost Modern Warfare whatever.
Or Dirt as well, ever associating it with Colin McRae was stupid. Now having the Dirts as the base and removing Colin from the Dirt Rally spin offs as a reverse was also kinda weird, but now it makes at least more sense.

 

[Vox Machina]

WHAT

 

[The artful mincer]

I don't know. I want a game to be well-designed, performant and hopefully have a few original ideas.

Yep

Do I want games to boldly stand apart and do things their own way? For sure.

I do too but I think doing that in long running franchise is not the best idea. Especially if your current franchise already offers something unique you can't find much of elsewhere.It would be best to do that with a new IP or spin off.

Do I think that will mean the same thing to everybody? Not really.

Agree

That said, the pizza and curry analogy seems to undermine the premise - these are very generic dishes

Yeah your probably right!

you can find anywhere in the UK. I'd rather have something that doesn't just emulate the already well-established and over-subscribed (even if it does it very well) - I'd rather have something that tries something new, or something that few others are trying.

Completely agree here

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I agree with your broader point, OP. Even if your curry analogy was a little goofy (although, now I really really fancy a Rogan Josh).

It's one of the reasons I'm totally switched off from the Gears of War franchise. The original Epic games were dark and brooding, with horror atmospheric elements, rich with a particular kind of dudebro machismo fantasy, and an enemy faction that is probably one of the most fascinating, mysterious, and best-designed (in terms of art design) enemy factions in gaming ever.

The Coalition Gears games took the basic template, significantly toned down the ultra-machismo aesthetic style, shifted focus to an entirely unoriginal and entirely bland-designed waifu character, and changed to one of the most shitty designed, generic, and ultimately vapid designed enemy factions in gaming.

It's just not what I wanted out of Gears of War, regardless of how good the gunplay and level design was.

 

[EverydayBeast]

RE1-3 combined is better than RE4. Period. Raccoon city is better. Period.

 

[Knightime_X]

What if the curry is no longer making enough money, and they can't make ends meet by continuing it?