www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Saturday, May 29, 2021
More of the same? Sign me up!
My friends and me have played through several campaigns of Dungeons & Dragons. Once we reach the end of a campaign, we start a new one. New characters, usually low level again, new story, new theme; but the same players, same rules, and same tools. That is an experience which is surprisingly difficult to have in a computer role-playing game. If you love a specific game, you can of course start over, but then the story will be largely the same. And if you move to the sequel, you will quite often find that it has changed very much compared to the original game, and not always for the better.
So when I saw a beta video for Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, the thing that struck me the most was how much it looked the same as Pathfinder: Kingmaker. Having over 180 hours played of Pathfinder: Kingmaker, getting a sequel that plays very similarly is great! Yes, the sequel has some improvements, like a rotating camera. But when I see the UI, I recognize most of it, including icons for spells, and even some character portraits. And I love it!
In other words, I wasn't finished with the Pathfinder system as implemented by Owlcat Games, I was just finished with Pathfinder: Kingmaker. I'm looking forward playing the system again, with a new campaign, leading a crusade against demons rather than leading a kingdom. And there are other games like that. I'd gladly play a Zelda: Breath of the Wild 2 game which doesn't change the gameplay much, but gives me a new world to explore. Or a new Divinity: Original Sin game with just a new campaign and the game system of the previous game.
Given how "new campaign for old game" should be a lot cheaper to produce than making a new game on a new engine with a new game system, I wonder why it happens so rarely.
- posted by Tobold @ 7:43 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
> I wonder why it happens so rarely
I think there's several reasons for that.
Firstly, you seem to want more content for the same game, but different players are interested in different types of content.
Some like combats and would be happy with endless dungeons, even with no story.
Some play for narrative and would be happy with new quests, even if combats are generally repeating the same stuff again and again.
Some prefer exploring the mechanics, they would be happy to replay the game, if they can try a different set of tools. On the other hand, grinding trhough new quests with old rules that they already learned learned how to exploit, wouldn't interest them at all.
If you target single audience with narrow interests, it's easier to create a sequel that would satisfy most of the players. If the game has broader appeal, then either you disappoint some of them, or you're up for a full-fledged sequel.
More importantly, many players seek to relieve emotional impact from the game, rather than repeating particular gameplay actions. For example, people that were awed by Breath of the Wild's systemic interactivity would expect to feel the same about its sequel.
Obviously, you can't surprise the players again with the same mechanics: you have to up the ante and come up with something even more awesome and set the bar even higher. The same goes for all the other aspects of the game, be it action, narration, gameplay depth, immersion etc. A sequel to a groundbreaking game can't be "more of the same", because players love it for exceeding their expectations, rather than just providing some baseline entertainment.
I think there's several reasons for that.
Firstly, you seem to want more content for the same game, but different players are interested in different types of content.
Some like combats and would be happy with endless dungeons, even with no story.
Some play for narrative and would be happy with new quests, even if combats are generally repeating the same stuff again and again.
Some prefer exploring the mechanics, they would be happy to replay the game, if they can try a different set of tools. On the other hand, grinding trhough new quests with old rules that they already learned learned how to exploit, wouldn't interest them at all.
If you target single audience with narrow interests, it's easier to create a sequel that would satisfy most of the players. If the game has broader appeal, then either you disappoint some of them, or you're up for a full-fledged sequel.
More importantly, many players seek to relieve emotional impact from the game, rather than repeating particular gameplay actions. For example, people that were awed by Breath of the Wild's systemic interactivity would expect to feel the same about its sequel.
Obviously, you can't surprise the players again with the same mechanics: you have to up the ante and come up with something even more awesome and set the bar even higher. The same goes for all the other aspects of the game, be it action, narration, gameplay depth, immersion etc. A sequel to a groundbreaking game can't be "more of the same", because players love it for exceeding their expectations, rather than just providing some baseline entertainment.
I finally got into King's Bounty Darkside, which is basically the same as the previous two, only possibly too big. And I was pleasantly surprised to see that there is a King's Bounty sequel due this year. Obviously there will be massive graphical upgrades, but I suspect the classic gameplay will still be there - basically a distilled version of the tactical fighting part of Heroes of Might and Magic, without the city building or strategy layer. I don't want that part to change ever!
More of the same tends to get sold as an expansion or DLC, and priced accordingly. Gamers would probably balk at being asked to pay the full price of a game for that.
Also, game developers are tinkerers by nature. There are going to be elements of the original game that they think could be improved, or features they'd like to add.
Finally, if you don't iterate on games you stagnate. You could argue whether Baldur's Gate 3 is a better game than Baldur's Gate 2, but without change we'd be on the 38th version of Pools Of Radiance instead :)
Also, game developers are tinkerers by nature. There are going to be elements of the original game that they think could be improved, or features they'd like to add.
Finally, if you don't iterate on games you stagnate. You could argue whether Baldur's Gate 3 is a better game than Baldur's Gate 2, but without change we'd be on the 38th version of Pools Of Radiance instead :)
FIFA may be the best example of "more of the same". Year after year they manage to basically "clone" the previous game and sell it at full price.
Post a Comment
<< Home
