Changing gameplay in Sequels

[Crni Vuk]

Something that's bothering me is the question,

Why do Game Sequels change basic mechanics?

Well, I am not talking about progress here, new skills, smoother gameplay updated graphics. Those are all welcome changes. But, why is there in so many Sequels a change to basic gameplay mechanics? Mechanics that I actually see as solid mechanics. I am not talking about games that have been made by different companies, like Fallout 3 and Fallout 1/2, those have completely different principles in mind. Not to mention there are no clue 10-15 years difference between those games. I am thinking about games made by the same company or same team even, with the need to always reinvent the wheel with each new Sequel. An example would be Witcher 1 and 2, or the evolution that you saw with the Elderscrolls game from Morrowind to Oblivion and Skyrim, or Dragon Age 1 and 2, Mass Effect 1,2,3 etc.

Changing or even removing mechanics that clearly didnt worked well is understandable, but a complete change to mechanics that worked decently instead of actually improving on them? That seems a bit counterproductive in my opinion and in the case of Morrowind > Oblivion > Skyrim even leading to degradation of some mechanics making them worse. Like the inventory system for example, of which I believe Morrowind had so far the best inventory system of all 3 games. Not the best looking UI granted, but that is really just the visuals those can be changed rather easily. Morrowinds UI managed to display all important informations on one screen and items had icons that made it very easy to identify them. You knew emidiately which item was magical and which one not. I have no clue why both Oblivion and Skyrim changed it and made it even worse and making it even worse. This brings up another point.

Mechanics that should be already perfected by now get changed over and over again. Like the inventory system. RPGs for example are definitely not new genres. The inventory system has been perfected centuries ago. I never had a problem with the inventory of F1/2, Baldurs Gate, Gothic 1/2, Jagged Alliance etc. mind you, those are pretty old games, each one at least 10 years (I think). And while they all found their own solutions, they still had something in common. Items had icons that made it easy to identify them, a shotgun looked different to assault rifles. Items had grids, a certain space they would occupy. It made it easy to navigate trough it and spot each individual item. And the inventory was rather limited in space so you had usually not TO much clutter. But for some reasons a lot of modern games try to completely change it and reinvent the wheel, with each new game ... replacing icons with lists, small fonts, removing describtions for items etc. leading to thousands of subcategories where each cagegory has its own window leading to unnecessary clicking for the user because you have to navigate trough 3-4 or sometimes more (!) menues just to get from alchemy to armor or from the inventory to the skill menue. I find this somewhat disturbing, because one job for designers (no matter what kind of designer) is to not only create something that looks pretty but is also practical. Just a small example. A general rule in UI design is, "never Never use a Warning When you Mean Undo"

So, with saying all this, why is there such a huge need and urge to always change basic gameplay mechanics between Sequels? What do you people think. I find this often enough frustrating, not so much that it stops me from playing, the number of games that I quit because of shit UIs are low, but it is somewhat irritating. Imagine if everything would be solved in such a way. If each car model would actually require a different driver licence from you, or if each keyboard would have a totally different layout, every toilet different signs that you have to remember ... and so on. What a wonderfull world that would be ...

 

[naossano]

Not adding much right now as i don't have time.

Just that many games are cross plateform now, and then have to be used with a gamepad.
You can use keyboard+mouse, but it is made for gamepad that have limited buttons.

I believe many games that are made for the mouse usually have better menus and inventories. There have far more freedom.

 

[Hassknecht]

Oblivion and Skyrim had different UI and inventory systems because they focused more on controllers than on mouse and keyboard.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Why do Game Sequels change basic mechanics?

I think it boils down to arrogance or lack of comprehension; or both... mixed with peer pressure to conform to recent trends in the hope of selling better to more gamers.
*One could rightly include Preference, but IMO a professional's preference should not influence the design unless it's an original title. If I were developing a series game, I would expand and extrapolate on the established series, not make it a copy of my own favorite series... I would not make a Brutal Lengend 2 as a 'Jagged Alliance' or 'Demon Stone' clone; just set in the same rock album fantasy land. I'd leave personal preferences outside of the office.

I don't have any qualms with new games and new designs for games... that is until they brand a new game AS an established game; one that it might have nothing in common with... but they want the name and reputation.
*I know that you are not talking about FO3 ~but I am.

I see this as rather similar to taking a product like Vegemite, and reformulating it to appeal to a larger group of consumers ~and still calling it Vegemite. Imagine if the Sarah Lee corp bought Kraft's Vegemite and sold it with the same label, but with a Nutella knock off paste in the jar. People would recognize the name, but perhaps never tasted it, so they try it and think that they really like Vegemite; and tell there friends too. People scoffing at the sugar paste and demanding the original formula would equally be derided and chided as nostalgic fops who are the only ones that could willingly eat the stuff if it were [stupidly] reverted to that messed up original flavor.
~And yet that's what Vegemite is, and what the name implies; not nut putty.

There is a real need for new designs, and new gameplay; and systems that take advantage of new hardware; but I certainly see that as advancements that should come with new names. A startling majority of gamers seem to actually think that mechanics are separate from IP, and that as long as the setting is the same, then it's appropriate, and that any mechanics are fine irrespective of any previous mechanics.
(As if Space Marine could pass for a Dawn of War 3.)

 

[Crni Vuk]

Not adding much right now as i don't have time.

Just that many games are cross plateform now, and then have to be used with a gamepad.
You can use keyboard+mouse, but it is made for gamepad that have limited buttons.

I believe many games that are made for the mouse usually have better menus and inventories. There have far more freedom.

fair enough, but changing a game from the console to the PC or from the PC to the console is one thing. But even on the console, so from one game to other you see very often ground braking changes to the gameplay, in my opinion for aparantly no reason. Mind you, I am not talking about obvsiously broken game mechanics or something like that. After all, how many times can you revolutionise a jump and run game? Or a shooter? Or a racing game? How many times can you reinvent the wheel till you end up with a shape that is worse then what you had before? Just saying. I dont get this mindset somtimes where developers feel ... forced to change a decent gaming system to do something that I can only describe as a 180° turn. Can it be true that some gamedesigners/developers feel the need to follow every new style or idea? Someone makes an awesome game, like Disohonored, and suddenly every game has to be either dark, gritty or follow the same gameplay. So naturaly Thief 4 has to be a "clone" of Dishonored one way or another. No clue.

Oblivion and Skyrim had different UI and inventory systems because they focused more on controllers than on mouse and keyboard.

There are plenty of inventory systems that work perfectly even with controllers without the need to totally dumbfuck your nervous system

No no, I played countless of SNES titles that had a much better system then Oblivion/Skyrim ever had - and the charm of those is they could have even worked on the PC, becaues what we are talking about are design issues and not technical limitations. Those are design flaws. Like I said. The inventory system of games is not a new evolution, a lot of very inteligent people worked out solutions for both the PC and the console and those have proven themself to be very usefull for a decade. For example a lot of SNES RPGs shared the same or similar system for their magic and inventory systems because they worked. But what I notice today is that very often visuals are prioritised and as result the usability is either completely forgotten or minimised.

 

[AskWazzup]

I probably have no idea as to the precise reason why, as i don't work in that industry and have no idea how game development teams work, but i would wager that it has to do with:

1) Cutting time and costs - make something more simple to implement and debug.
2) Joystick friendly, uncomplicated (notnecessarily the most practical) design that doesn't impose frustration.
3) Pyramid hierarchy in mostly every big company, which means even if you are very good at your job, the final decisions will most likely not be up to you.

For example i was searching the net for a smartphone with a physical keyboard and only found a couple of them that don't really satisfy my needs. Now typing is obviously much better and more efficient with a physical keyboard, but that is not true with grandma and grandpa and you don't have to spend as much for proof testing the keyboard that's an additional piece to the hardware. Another example, now in the gaming industry, something that i LOATHE and HATE very much is the regenerating health.... We had health packs in fps games for over a decade and it worked fine, but now every game has this fucking shit that takes me out of imagination land every time i soak up huge amounts of damage, and a brief cover behind the wall is enough to heal up to full health. I have even seen many people defend this concept, but it's pretty much an artificial concept that's implement for the sole reason of cutting level design and balance costs.

There are other various reasons, but probably all of them boil down to something that only serves the investors pockets in the long run. I can't think of any feature in any non indie game (and maybe i'm wrong) for the last decade, that has been implemented for the user comfort while at the same time increasing the costs on the developers side.

 

[Crni Vuk]

There is a real need for new designs, and new gameplay; and systems that take advantage of new hardware; but I certainly see that as advancements that should come with new names. A startling majority of gamers seem to actually think that mechanics are separate from IP, and that as long as the setting is the same, then it's appropriate, and that any mechanics are fine irrespective of any previous mechanics.
(As if Space Marine could pass for a Dawn of War 3.)

indeed. I also notice a lack of understand as far as design and visuals goes. To many people confuse a certain style/design with "pretty graphics". But one side is just the overall tone and feel of something while the other is the hardware. That's why Bioschock feels like Bioschock no matter what resolution or shader you use, becaues the game has a distinctive style which it follows. Bioschock 2 was in many ways inferior to Bioschock 1, mainly with the story, but the gameplay was definitely an improvement to the previous games! You had new weapons and new abilities, yet they didnt changed the whole system. I have seen people comparing the sequels and change in mechanics with the changing storylines in movies, but they forget the medium. Now if for example Terminator 5 would become a soap opera about 2 terminators falling in love and raizing children ... or a new Alien movie adopting the tone of a Dog with the name Bethoveen. A family adopting their own little xenomorph! *shudders*

 

[naossano]

Why most AAA are games with first person perspective, with a few RPG element, open-world sandbox, with limited choices/dialogs ?

Because because GTA makes a lot of money.

 

[woo1108]

Because they want to sold more copies of game.
to do that, they should make games for non-gamers.

What is game? it's kind of competetion.
for single player game, it's competetion between developer(or game) and player.
to be a good game, competetion should be fair.
Non-gamers don't like games.
they don't want to be fair.
they don't want competetion.

How to attract non-gamers?
by changing the game to non-game.
make competetion unfair, don't let player to play the game but let them labor for game.
and let the game itself direct the player to labor.
game itselves pay player with movies, in-game money, looking good weapons, etc for their labor.
there is no goals for player but just spent thier time for labor.
and there is no game but just labors.

 

[Emperor]

I side with Woo. Basicaly the changes are to attract a bigger audience but since the ''original'' audience already know what it want, there's a chance they may not buy the product if they don't get what they want. Non-gamers on the other hands doesn't know much about games and if they ever play one it will be a popular one ( or cheap one) that's why there are so many clones of the popular games. Unfortunatly to catch this new audience, a game would need to change itself drastically to appeal to it and may not be the same after the transformation.

The worst decision IMO is changing a game to appeal to another audience from another game, just like in a interview from a person who worked on Dark Sould 2 said that some changes would be for people that liked Skyrim and another games. I think this is such a bad decision because people from A would not want a thing from B.a because they already got their ''masterpiece'' since most of times B.a doesn't hold the fame for A they would put B.a aside and continue playing A. The result would be that a game lost it's target audience and propably enraged it's former audience.

 

[naossano]

Especially when the former audience first went into game B especially because they very different than game A. They wanted to escape game A.
Now, they have to kickstarter game C to escape games A & B that are now the same.

 

[Crni Vuk]

you should not understimate the power of trends though. Sometimes a decision is made because "its cool" or because its somekind of fashion. Sometimes a certain kind of game, branch or design becomes very popular, and it appears almost everywhere, even in places where it actually doesnt make sense. Like mixing RPG elemtes with shooters because one game has become very popular with it. I am not saying it can't work, but I dont think that EVERY kind of shooter benefits from such decisions, Deus Ex 1 for example was awesome, because they had a clear vision behind it. But I am not sure if I would like to see the same principle behind Doom or Half Life. I noticed that a lot of diversity, something that I always loved with gaming, dissapeared as well. Some company makes a very succesfull RTS or Action Game or Shooter etc. and suddenly EVERY other game has one way or another to copy that style or gameplay. Just like you said, Dark Souls 2 trying to satisfy Skyrim fans. For some time a lot of RTS games for example abanonded the traditional "C&C" style of base building and such. I am missing those games. But the RTS genre is in my opinion lacking good titles anyway. Titles like Supreme Commander, the old C&C series, Men of War, Commandos etc. and the really great thing was, they all had a very different feel to them.

 

[SnapSlav]

Simply put, because a game's sequel doesn't have to, NOR SHOULD IT, operate precisely as its prequel. It's a fallacy to assume otherwise. It's true that you'd be hard pressed to legitimize "changing the formula" for something that totally worked, but in most circumstances this isn't done for that exact lack of legitimacy. But a game developer can either recognize their game's reception, or simply determine on their own that it wasn't what they'd envisioned, and that would be more than enough cause for them to make basic gameplay different from one numeric title in a series to the next. Is it an absolute that Fable II should fundamentally operate just as Fable had? No. Is it an absolute that Fallout 4 play exactly the same as Fallout 3 did? No. Comfort and predictability are merely 2 aspects to base a game's mechanics off of, amidst a myriad of many, many more. Improvement, optimization, artistic license, vision, deliberate discomfort, and so on and so on. There's plenty of reasons to NOT do the same thing when moving from 1 title to another.

Granted, most games AREN'T daring and provocative mediums nowadays as they once were, so for the most part these options give way to the "standardization" of doing the same thing the previous game did, perhaps a bit improved but otherwise the same. But that's not to say that's how it SHOULD be. Bioshock Infinite played fundamentally differently from Bioshock, and that was a good thing, because it worked for BSI. But taken one step further, Bioshock Infinite's DLC "Burial at Sea: Ep. 2" played fundamentally differently from Infinite! Unlike the transition from BS to BSI, it was less than a year between the game's 3rd DLC and the game proper, rather than the 4 years between the first game and its sequel. And the change in gameplay mechanics worked WONDERFULLY in the latter case, as well. The DLC would have fallen apart if they played exactly the same as the core game. Likewise the sequel would've been riddled with problems had it played exactly the same as its prequel (not including optimizations). The developers made artistic decisions to change up the formula of the mechanics and it worked to the titles' favors to do so, just like they held back the release of Infinite for over a year so that they'd release the finished game they set out to create, despite the moans of millions of impatient fans.

Sequels that "do it wrong" when they change the basic gameplay from their predecessors aren't a model for why it shouldn't be done, they're just a model of failure. Games have every right to change how they function from one title to another, and if they pull it off well, all the more reason to keep permitting them that freedom! Games are an art form, and you don't bog down art with arbitrary rules, just because it would be convenient.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Simply put, because a game's sequel doesn't have to, NOR SHOULD IT, operate precisely as its prequel. It's a fallacy to assume otherwise. It's true that you'd be hard pressed to legitimize "changing the formula" for something that totally worked, but in most circumstances this isn't done for that exact lack of legitimacy. But a game developer can either recognize their game's reception, or simply determine on their own that it wasn't what they'd envisioned, and that would be more than enough cause for them to make basic gameplay different from one numeric title in a series to the next. Is it an absolute that Fable II should fundamentally operate just as Fable had? No. Is it an absolute that Fallout 4 play exactly the same as Fallout 3 did? No. Comfort and predictability are merely 2 aspects to base a game's mechanics off of, amidst a myriad of many, many more. Improvement, optimization, artistic license, vision, deliberate discomfort, and so on and so on. There's plenty of reasons to NOT do the same thing when moving from 1 title to another.

Granted, most games AREN'T daring and provocative mediums nowadays as they once were, so for the most part these options give way to the "standardization" of doing the same thing the previous game did, perhaps a bit improved but otherwise the same. But that's not to say that's how it SHOULD be. Bioshock Infinite played fundamentally differently from Bioshock, and that was a good thing, because it worked for BSI. But taken one step further, Bioshock Infinite's DLC "Burial at Sea: Ep. 2" played fundamentally differently from Infinite! Unlike the transition from BS to BSI, it was less than a year between the game's 3rd DLC and the game proper, rather than the 4 years between the first game and its sequel. And the change in gameplay mechanics worked WONDERFULLY in the latter case, as well. The DLC would have fallen apart if they played exactly the same as the core game. Likewise the sequel would've been riddled with problems had it played exactly the same as its prequel (not including optimizations). The developers made artistic decisions to change up the formula of the mechanics and it worked to the titles' favors to do so, just like they held back the release of Infinite for over a year so that they'd release the finished game they set out to create, despite the moans of millions of impatient fans.

Sequels that "do it wrong" when they change the basic gameplay from their predecessors aren't a model for why it shouldn't be done, they're just a model of failure. Games have every right to change how they function from one title to another, and if they pull it off well, all the more reason to keep permitting them that freedom! Games are an art form, and you don't bog down art with arbitrary rules, just because it would be convenient.

I disagree with several points here; but I doubt anyone actually suggests that any sequel must be a 1:1 clone of the previous title. The problem is one of brand identification, and the exaggerated hypothetical example could be Chess and Chess 2. The name Chess means what it is ~that's what you look for and expect when you seek out a Chess game. Chess 2 should (in all situations) retain the core mechanics of Chess. It can be expanded upon, it can even have aspects removed; changed in minor or major ways, but it should always stay within the general bounds of the core goals & gameplay... It should always 'scratch the same itch'. Otherwise, it should be called something else than 'Chess 2'.

Chess 2, should not be a game that has entirely different priorities or gameplay goals. Chess 2 should not be a Pole-Position clone for example, nor a Donkey Kong clone. Chess 2 should not be a Quake clone, nor a copy of the Jeopardy home game. Like with a tree, there should always be room to grow, room to improve; and freedom to cut off some dead limbs... but regardless of variation, it should always bear essentially the same fruit, or at least recognizable fruit of the same type ~even if possessed of a pleasantly [minor] difference in taste. [If it came from an Apple tree, the next tree should still bear apples ~that look and taste like apples ~ not plums; else it should not be called an Apple tree/ or Apples.] *Tree grafts are reading too much into it, but should indeed be given a distinct name.

Look at the Warhammer IP; there must be two dozen Warhammer video games; some hack-n-shooters, others are RTS; others a mixture. They all share the Warhammer IPs [WH & WH40k], but their gameplay is not necessarily interchangeable between series. Meaning that it's not cool to release a Space Hulk style game AS a Dawn of War game... Dawn of War is its own series, and style of game; same as it's not cool to release a DoW style game as the official Space Marine 2. For an identifiable series game change is expected and welcome ~but outright mutation is not; and is generally a bad thing ~except to complete newcomers that have no prior knowledge of what the name implies... but then why make a sequel for somebody that has never heard of the series? (Why BUY a sequel that is only marginally related to the established games ~if even that?)

 

[Crni Vuk]

Simply put, because a game's sequel doesn't have to, NOR SHOULD IT, operate precisely as its prequel. It's a fallacy to assume otherwise. It's true that you'd be hard pressed to legitimize "changing the formula" for something that totally worked, but in most circumstances this isn't done for that exact lack of legitimacy. But a game developer can either recognize their game's reception, or simply determine on their own that it wasn't what they'd envisioned, and that would be more than enough cause for them to make basic gameplay different from one numeric title in a series to the next. Is it an absolute that Fable II should fundamentally operate just as Fable had? No. Is it an absolute that Fallout 4 play exactly the same as Fallout 3 did? No. Comfort and predictability are merely 2 aspects to base a game's mechanics off of, amidst a myriad of many, many more. Improvement, optimization, artistic license, vision, deliberate discomfort, and so on and so on. There's plenty of reasons to NOT do the same thing when moving from 1 title to another.

I feel that Gizmo pretty much said already everything and probably better then I could, but if I get you right, and this is not just a hypotetical question as we seen it happen with countless of games out there, then it would be alright to for example take an RTS game like Supreme Commander and release a Sequel which is from the gameplay a copy of Doom. I've seen already one franchise that has been completely killed by it.

Commandos 1-2-3

and Commando 4

Its not a surprise that the last game had no success. It was a copy of Call of Duty and it had nothing of what made Commandos so unique and interesting. I think part of the problem was that Commandos became to famous, to expensive. With Commandos 1 and 2 you had a very loyal but rather small userbase that loved the fact how beating the game was worth to brag infront of your friends, because of the difficulty. And it was very succesfull, as long it was just about their community. But over time it probably grew in size, new engines have been used 3D, more expensive equipment and development, the company was bought by a bigger publisher I think, and thus the game had to "change", in the end though it completey alinated its previous fans and it didnt mange to compete with already known shooters like Call of Duty or Medal of Honor. So yeah ...

I am not saying changes should not happen, and I even somewhat understand the reasons of what Bethesda did with Fallout 3 (But I dont have to accept them!). Fallout 1/2 type of games is simply not what they do well. What I dont understand though is why a team is taking a system they created and changing it completely instad of expanding and improving on it in some cases doing a 180° tourn. Like from Witcher 1 to Witcher 2. I think Witcher 1 did a lot of things "alright". Like the UI and inventory system. The Witcher 2 had NO reason to compltely remove and rework that part. Yet they did it. And the system they use now is less intuitive, more confusing and a chore to use. Sorting trough millions of junk every couple of hours because almost EVERY item has some weight from 0.1 to 2 is simply ... frustrating. And you never know if the ingredients which are needed for the crafting will be usefull in the later game or not. Its full of clutter and overly convoluted. I feel a lot of games change things that actually dont need any change, instead of actually improving on the system they already have and thus offering a much better experience for the players.

Games have every right to change how they function from one title to another, and if they pull it off well, all the more reason to keep permitting them that freedom! Games are an art form, and you don't bog down art with arbitrary rules, just because it would be convenient.

We have the freedom to do a lot of things. However, that doesnt mean that its always the right thing to do, and yes, as far we talk about making money here I believe there are "right" and "wrong" decisions. See, I am not going to open that can of worms in discussing if games are now really art or not, thats not important anyway. Important is though that you have as well a product, with the intention to sell it to someone, when I throw 50$ at some game, book or movie (doesnt matter what form of entertainment really) then I expect something for my money, I place a value on it. Imagine if each time you buy a new car you had to get a new driver licence for example because every can manufacture has a completely different system for his car, in how it should be used and operated. That would be highly stupid and impractical. Strang enough, for games thats no problem at al! There is no consensus about inventory systems, UI development and design decisions, I am sometimes schocked about the fact how often people with academic educations throw any design decisions and rules completely out of the window, I know that games are not books or cars. But there have been branches that had to deal with the same or similar problems like games in the past and they developed certain rules or lets say principles. You can sometimes try to break out of those rules and there are awesome examples in all media and forms of enterainment where it worked. But its obvious that in many cases you have a patter at work, like in action movies where the hero gets the girl in the end or where you have a clear protagonist that starts weak and overcomes the challanges, growing with them. It worked very well with certain types of stories. But suddenly a lot of game developers ignore a lot of the principles that have been developed over the last 50-60 years. And particularly with UIs in games. Like I said in a different post, the inventory system has been in use for the last 20 years in games. There is no reason to always reeinvent the wheel each time you create a new game. Every possible problem definitely already saw SOME solution that worked very well.

 

[SnapSlav]

No, what you're arguing as a problem of brand loyalty or brand identification can more easily be labeled false classification.

Take the game Dead Space: Ignition for example. Ignition, unlike its predecessors Dead Space and Dead Space: Extraction was not a shooter with survival horror elements; it was a multi-variety puzzle game. Some would argue (and many have) that it was jarringly different from the rest of the series, out of place, and had no purpose in the story. Yet it was very much a Dead Space game. Sometimes all it takes to qualify it is that it is set in the same universe as the rest of the titles with the same name (a distinction NOT shared by sequential Quake titles), and in that regard Ignition more than qualifies, as it is not only set in the same universe as the rest of the Dead Space games, but serves as a direct prequel to Dead Space 2's event, set mere hours earlier and in the same location, the Titan Sprawl. For fans of the series, it was a mixed bag. Some identified strictly with the survival horror shooter aspects of the previous titles, and on those grounds found nothing but cause to hate Ignition, yet others, interested solely in the expanding narrative of the universe (provided the gameplay wasn't dull and the story itself was at least engaging, interesting, and gave them a desire to learn more) saw it for what it was, another title in the Dead Space series, if a spin-off that was designed as a short money-sink for the producers at EA, yet one that expanded the setting and backstory faithfully.

The previously mentioned Quake series took the opposite approach, where each new iteration was essentially the same, as far as game mechanics were concerned, yet always set in a new, unrelated universe. Quake was largely reminiscent of Doom almost entirely in its thematic and setting approach: a science fiction game set in the near future with fictional technologies that tied into a medieval world's hellish demons. Quake II, but stark and utterly complete contrast, was a game set in the distant future about Earth forces striking back against an alien invasion. Quake III had no backstory or setting to it as it was just some pointless multiplayer game, with Quake IV serving as the first and only tie-in game in the series in roughly a decade to have anything to do with a previous title, in this case set in the same universe as Quake II's alien invasion. The brand remained the same throughout each new title, despite the story having no connection from one to another, because the mechanics were the same.

An issue of calling a game Chess yet depicting a fictional FPS invasion of Normandy is not an issue of being too different from the prequel but an issue of misrepresentation because of the title. Brand identification does not necessitate that the setting and mechanics and all that jazz be preserves, or anything at all. Bioshock for instance inherited the "shock" suffix to tie in to its spiritual predecessors in the System Shock series, and it deserved it through both tonal connection as well as being created by the same group of people, even though the gameplay was different and the setting was totally detached from the earlier games. Hexen: Beyond Heretic rightfully owned the name of the sequel to Heretic despite not being a simple "Doom clone" that progressed linearly from level to level, but rather progressing in non-linear fashion through a hub system with mixed RPG elements added to the FPS gameplay, because it was set in the same universe as Heretic.

Again and again, we see countless examples of names being shared from prequel to sequel, or predecessor to spiritual successor, and the only pattern is that THERE ARE NO PATTERNS. It's not a necessity that a sequential game play just like the one before it, at all, and it's not the doom of a game to be so different, provided it is done well. I never played the Commando series, so I can't speak on why the 4th iteration was apparently considered a failure, but it's not necessarily because it offered drastically different gameplay. It might be, but it isn't necessarily why. Again, gaming is an art form, and among other forms of art, it's a uniquely interactive storytelling experience, but as an art form it is not bound by simplistic rules of following basic patterns and copying from one title to the next. They're much more open-ended than that, and failures across sequels are simple testaments to individual failures, not wholey representative of a general practice that should not be deviated from.

 

[Gizmojunk]

You don't make a 'Dawn of War' title with Space Hulk, or 'Space Marine' gameplay. The setting and content is spice, while the gameplay is the meat. Think of it as Chess, with decorative sets of samurai, or Tolkien's elves.

You can make any kind of game from any setting, but one should never use arbitrary gameplay in a series title; it's downright disingenuous. Like what Bethesda did with FO3. Series' gameplay is not separated from the series ~it IS the series.

 

[Crni Vuk]

No, what you're arguing as a problem of brand loyalty or brand identification can more easily be labeled false classification

changing the inventory systems from icons to a list with confusing categories has nothing to do with brand identification or labels though. Its simply bad design. I say this again. You have 2 games, one is the sequel to the other game, why should it change all the mechanics from the previous game? Why should for example Fallout 2 suddenly become an adventure game instead of using Fallout 1 mechanics and improving those? Thats what I am talking about. If youre a good designer (doesnt matter if its games or with graphic) then you usually do something on purpose, if you know your job well then you dont just slap something on the screen because it looks "pretty", thats what everyoen can do, thats not what the job of a designer is. Your job is to find solutions to certain problems. This is true for games just as it is for any other field that is about design.

Again and again, we see countless examples of names being shared from prequel to sequel, or predecessor to spiritual successor, and the only pattern is that THERE ARE NO PATTERNS. It's not a necessity that a sequential game play just like the one before it, at all, and it's not the doom of a game to be so different, provided it is done well. I never played the Commando series, so I can't speak on why the 4th iteration was apparently considered a failure, but it's not necessarily because it offered drastically different gameplay. It might be, but it isn't necessarily why. Again, gaming is an art form, and among other forms of art, it's a uniquely interactive storytelling experience, but as an art form it is not bound by simplistic rules of following basic patterns and copying from one title to the next. They're much more open-ended than that, and failures across sequels are simple testaments to individual failures, not wholey representative of a general practice that should not be deviated from.

I have the strong feeling that you're missunderstanding my intentions. Look. I am not opposed to changes or a natural evolution. I would not want to return to a lot of the gameplay mechanics we had 10-15 years ago, simply because a lot has improved here. Like the userfriendlyness. Or the visuals of course, not with graphics, I mean the aesthetic, you can easily tell if a game had great concept artists and designers working behind it or not. Like with Diablo 3 for instance, from the design its awesome. A very polished product. This whole concept art, character and environment design has become its own industry, something that was done only by a handfull of people in the past, very often by artists (like Giger) is now a profession. And it shows.

But what I am talking about is changes with basic mechanics, changes that are unnecessary. Lets use Fallout 1 and 2 as examples. I dont think Fallout 2 would have been the better game compared to Fallout 1 if the developers decided to make it more like Doom, in first person or like the First Elder-Scrolls game about some post apoclyptic Sand-Box world, changing the mechanic from the top down view to the first person view where it plays exactly like a shooter. Same story, same content, but a complete shift in the mechanics for no reason. This is a VERY extreme example, but its just to show a point. Why is there a need to change everything in some games all of sudden? I remember that Baldurs Gate 2 used more or less the same system you had in Baldurs Gate 1, you gained more levels, you got more powerfull spells etc. but it was more or less the same system, simply improved. Now the witcher 1 and 2. The Witcher 2 is not using and improving the system from W1, no its creating a whole new system with a different skill tree and combat system. I am not saying here that its worse or better, but its definitely different. And many games do it like that.

 

[naossano]

Nice to point out Commando. I cannot imagine Commandos without the gameplay. I simply name commandos when i want to talk about the gameplay. When i ask if there is any game like commando, i have a clear picture in mind for what i am talking about and i don't need to describe anything.

On the other hand, Fallout 3 being Oblivion with guns doesn't surprise anyone. Regardless we like it or not, there is not a single player on earth that can say that Fallout 3 isn't Oblivion with guns. As the devellopers copy-pasted the Oblivion gameplay, and added Fallout background painting on it, it is more associated with the TES franchise than it is with the Fallout franchise. Which leaves the Fallout fans to wonder about why the hell did they have to call it Fallout. Since their target was TES fans, why bother crushing Fallout fans ? Do they have any hate agains't Fallout creators that they wanted to express even if it would mean that milions of fans would become collateral damages ?

 

[woo1108]

Do they have any hate agains't Fallout creators that they wanted to express even if it would mean that milions of fans would become collateral damages ?

Fo3 is not only have problem with game play, but also have story problem.
storys of FO1,2 or NV are not about a good guy became messiah and saving the world.
they are not about allegory of bible they are more close to athiesm.
but fo3 is about messiah, allegory of bible and linear plot that is only fittable for playler who want to be messiah.
so, I really suspect that beth hate Fallout.

it's funny that both Troika and Obsidian created kind of sequels with athiesm.
Arcanum denied messiah and NV's Yesman's ending achievement shows athiesm mark.
while beth created fo3 and oblivion with bible and messiah.