What is all this talk of innovation in sequels?

[dokilar]

Oh trust me my love for the pokemon games is unmeasurable, but I know they aren't innovative.

---------- Post added 2012-05-21 at 05:52 PM ----------



This is exactly what I try to tell people. People say SWTOR was terrible, but they spent so much time innovating with the voiced quests that they couldn't possibly add everything WoW has in its 7 years. People expect way to much and at this point WoW has a hold on the MMO market.

someone who gets it!! i personally feel that the questing in swtor is overlooked. sure there are aspects of it that are quite linear and similar to the go kill x, y, and z but back last summer when i was in swtor beta the servers were down for a couple weeks while they deployed a new build and coincidentally enough i got a week free of WoW when they released the firelands patch. i thought sure ill give it a shot, i havent played WoW in several months maybe itll be cool. i think the first thing i did was go check out the molten front quests and i immediately realized i was hooked on the voice acting questing of swtor. to each his own

the fact of the matter is WoW is a fairly good game. they are human and make mistakes but for the better part of a decade theyve had a fairly large grip on the mmo market. the problem is that gaming companies, looking to dig into some of the mmo markets audience, release games before theyre ready. (this is all from personal opinion). warhammer was for my guild a very promising game and for the first 39 levels it was. but the fact of the matter they released it before it was ready, either due to ceos demanding of it or developers being naive. just about every other mmo has done the same thing. even swtor was released, most likely, 4-6 months too early. games are rushed, and in the end they are compared to WoW. the never ending question i find myself wondering people asking themselves is "well why do i want to play this when WoW is established" partly impatience on the gamers part, and partly arrogance, greed, stupidity of the developers of these major mmo companies

[Deleted]

People throw around 'innovation' when they don't really know what they are talking about all the time, I stopped caring.

pretty much this.. Blizzard make solid games they are NOT innovative (for the most part and when they are its something which people dont really care about). Constant online and RMAH isnt new but they are new to a blizzard game (that doesnt make it innovative).. also rmah isnt even released yet so we dont even know how good or bad itll be. I care more about stopping gold sellers and spamming which we already get in all the channels.. we dont even have the option to report gold sellers only spam and if blizzard really cared about stopping gold sellers maybe they should have an option to report crap like that at launch.

P.S. innovation is making people spend stupid amounts of money on hats

[Whitepepper]

they're losing the mass market appeal they once had

I really don't see how you can come to a conclusion like that considering how wildly popular their current titles are. A few malcontents on the forums isn't indicative of the overall public opinion. Look at the numbers of people buying and playing these games.

[Digglett]

Oh trust me my love for the pokemon games is unmeasurable, but I know they aren't innovative.

I can see where you're coming from, but the lack thereof doesn't bug me, I like the game just as it is, an overhaul could put the series at a big risk.

[Mechazod]

I don't really care about innovation in sequels as long as they are good, an example I would use is the Disgaea series, each sequel just added more to the standard formula and just provided a great experience for fans but never really brought anything "innovative" so the series or genre.

One thing however I do wish sequels would provide after so many titles would be more variety in the characters/settings/themes, for example I would love to see more Nintendo series do this with the likes of Pokemon, Zelda and Mario.

[Deleted]

The only area Blizzard has actually innovated in in recent years is how to milk their customers as much as possible. Seriously, "brand new" gameplay features can always be found to originate from somewhere else, it's on the bussiness side that Blizzard is pulling the strings these days.

[GG you got me]

Meaning online only is actually really smart and forward thinking for Blizzard in a business sense. As a consumer I hate it but from a business stand point it makes total sense. They've taken Control from the user and placed it squarely in their hands.

If you're referring specifically to Diablo 3 which obviously is the sequel to an offline-capable game, then there wasn't much innovation here. Ubisoft did this with titles in similar genres before and were railed left and right. I agree with you that in terms of what it affords you as a business makes complete sense though. I don't have much problem with companies choosing to go this route either. As always, the consumer has the final vote on whether or not they will actually buy a product that is subject to these conditions.

[Deleted]

I really don't see how you can come to a conclusion like that considering how wildly popular their current titles are. A few malcontents on the forums isn't indicative of the overall public opinion. Look at the numbers of people buying and playing these games.

A few? i think the million or so people who left wow and im sure more would have left if the damn annual pass with free diablo wasnt so tempting.. even i got the annual pass and i hate cata! not touched WoW in months but im still paying. Smart on their part, but i wouldnt say they are as popular now as they were say 2 or 3 years ago. They have kept most of their fans happy and until we get titan or a new IP i dont think Blizz is going to gain that many new fans. Titan cannot come soon enough imo...

[Hraklea]

I'm thinking of other games that actually had true SEQUELS that were innovative, that didn't just add new things without changing everything drastically. And I'm coming up dry.

The easiest answer is Resident Evil. The series evolved a lot from 1 to 5 and every time I played a new one, they always gave me the "this is so much better than the previous one!".

I don't know, when I play a sequel, I expect it to play more or less like the original, but with old issues addressed, and some new stuff added in. Is that bad? Someone help me out here, and help me think of a sequel to a game that was truly innovative.

The whole issue here is the "old issues addressed". It's frustrating when you see the 4th expansion of WoW having the same stupid flaws of Vanilla. It's stupid when you see that LoL's season 2 is coming and the game still have balance issues that are easy to solve. It's boring when you see that D3 has the exactly the same gameplay of "click click click no player skill click click click!!!" that a 10 years old game.

Some people think that this is how those games are supposed to be. Some people requires more quality in spite of the fact that some flaws are "a classic of my childhood".

[Sj]

A few? i think the million or so people who left wow and im sure more would have left if the damn annual pass with free diablo wasnt so tempting.. even i got the annual pass and i hate cata! not touched WoW in months but im still paying. Smart on their part, but i wouldnt say they are as popular now as they were say 2 or 3 years ago. They have kept most of their fans happy and until we get titan or a new IP i dont think Blizz is going to gain that many new fans. Titan cannot come soon enough imo...

New people are trying WoW every day. It's only natural that people have stopped playing for various reasons over the course of 8 years.

[Nerraw]

If you're referring specifically to Diablo 3 which obviously is the sequel to an offline-capable game, then there wasn't much innovation here. Ubisoft did this with titles in similar genres before and were railed left and right. I agree with you that in terms of what it affords you as a business makes complete sense though. I don't have much problem with companies choosing to go this route either. As always, the consumer has the final vote on whether or not they will actually buy a product that is subject to these conditions.

The difference between Ubisoft's method and Blizzard's is that while Ubisoft's games still take place on the actual computer, Blizzard is busy moving all functionality onto their servers. WoW takes place solely on their servers, SC2 takes place solely on their servers (unless you want to play a gimped offline version), and now D3 takes place solely on their servers. They're going somewhere with their games and Bnet 2.0. Ubisoft is just trying to stop piracy (and with a feeble attempt at it too).

[Glorious Leader]

The difference between Ubisoft's method and Blizzard's is that while Ubisoft's games still take place on the actual computer, Blizzard is busy moving all functionality onto their servers. WoW takes place solely on their servers, SC2 takes place solely on their servers (unless you want to play a gimped offline version), and now D3 takes place solely on their servers. They're going somewhere with their games and Bnet 2.0. Ubisoft is just trying to stop piracy (and with a feeble attempt at it too).

Blizzard is about total control.

[Nerraw]

Blizzard is about total control.

I never said they weren't. They just have other plans on the sidelines as well. They've planned to do this for a long time. They announced it as far back as 2009 that they would integrate all their games into their unified Bnet 2.0 platform, which in time may serve non-Blizzard games as well. People seem to have forgotten this. And who knows how long they've been planning it before announcing it. Sooner or later it's gonna be the new Steam or Origin. Though I'm putting my money on later. Blizzard is known to take their time.

[TheWerebison]

The easiest answer is Resident Evil. The series evolved a lot from 1 to 5 and every time I played a new one, they always gave me the "this is so much better than the previous one!".



The whole issue here is the "old issues addressed". It's frustrating when you see the 4th expansion of WoW having the same stupid flaws of Vanilla. It's stupid when you see that LoL's season 2 is coming and the game still have balance issues that are easy to solve. It's boring when you see that D3 has the exactly the same gameplay of "click click click no player skill click click click!!!" that a 10 years old game.

Some people think that this is how those games are supposed to be. Some people requires more quality in spite of the fact that some flaws are "a classic of my childhood".

I agree about Resident Evil being innovative, but not in the way you said. Resident Evil changed from survival horror to "okay, we really want to actually kill those damn zombies", and then completely changed into a kind of from-behind FPS. I would say those are some sequels that definitely threw in innovation, particularly Resident Evil 4.

And I don't find D3's gameplay boring at all...it's the exact same with every game in that genre. And no player skill? Are we playing the same game?

[Glorious Leader]

I never said they weren't. They just have other plans on the sidelines as well. They've planned to do this for a long time. They announced it as far back as 2009 that they would integrate all their games into their unified Bnet 2.0 platform, which in time may serve non-Blizzard games as well. People seem to have forgotten this. And who knows how long they've been planning it before announcing it. Sooner or later it's gonna be the new Steam or Origin. Though I'm putting my money on later. Blizzard is known to take their time.

Blizzard does have plans alright. D3 was just to good of an opportunity for them to pass it up. Everyone was gonna buy it, it's diablo 3 so they can ram this shit down peoples throats and watch them get brow beat by their peers and kids on forums who white knight the shit out of the them. Not you the guy I quoted, just in general. They saw the opportunity to pass something that people would normally get really upset about (and stilll a few did) because they knew they had the name Diablo attached to something it would sell like hot cakes regardless of what nasty shit they put i n it.

[Vook]

I wouldn't call it smart from a business sense, as they ARE losing consumers/customers over it; I have at least 5 friends who didn't buy it because their internet isn't good enough. It's smart from a "no cheating/hacking/Blizz having control" kind of sense, but definitely not a business/financial one.

Blizzard can't always cater to the minority. This is 2012, having broadband internet is the standard. If your computer is good enough to run D3 and you DON'T have broadband, something is wrong.

Is Bomberman really a series, though? I'll admit, I loved Bomberman, and I did like how they changed their games over time. But is it a series, in the sense that it tells a continuing story? I haven't played many of the later ones (god, how many are there now?).

It's a franchise, not really a series. Back in the day it had little to no continuing storyline; they were doing something different every single game. Even the Super Bomberman series (which had FIVE games) had little continuity. Only games 2 and 3 had any continuing storyline; 1, 4 and 5 were separate storylines. And in modern day, it's more of the same. Every single game is a completely different story that has little to no relation to the other games. There WAS the Bomberman Jetterz series, but that was only what, 2 or 3 games?

[Deleted]

They have a very successful model across their company.

Starcraft 2: Single Payment, with Expansion Model. "Spike" income at Expansion launches.

Diablo 3: Single Payment, with Expansion Model. Gradual & Spike income with Expansion launches & Real Money Auction House.

World of Warcraft: Single Payment, with Expansion Model. Strong gradual income with Expansion launches, Subscription Fee & Character Services.

Over-all, they've got a strong amount of gradual income and spike income.

Starcraft II will feature a custom map purchase system which will probaly work much like the Real Money Auction House of Diablo 3

[Hraklea]

I agree about Resident Evil being innovative, but not in the way you said. Resident Evil changed from survival horror to "okay, we really want to actually kill those damn zombies", and then completely changed into a kind of from-behind FPS.

RE5 still requires you to survive, and still a horror game, so it sounds like a survival horror to me.

And I don't find D3's gameplay boring at all...it's the exact same with every game in that genre.

That's because when they change the gameplay, you label them out, like you did with RE5 because "it is a shooter". There's a lot of "medieval fantasy games where you gear up to kill a demon" that are not click spam.

You're disconsidering technology too. Diablo 2 was fun because it was the best thing we could have. Now, we can do better.

And no player skill? Are we playing the same game?

I'm sure we are.

[Nerraw]

Blizzard does have plans alright. D3 was just to good of an opportunity for them to pass it up. Everyone was gonna buy it, it's diablo 3 so they can ram this shit down peoples throats and watch them get brow beat by their peers and kids on forums who white knight the shit out of the them. Not you the guy I quoted, just in general. They saw the opportunity to pass something that people would normally get really upset about (and stilll a few did) because they knew they had the name Diablo attached to something it would sell like hot cakes regardless of what nasty shit they put i n it.

I'm sure that has been some of the motivation, but the people actually buying it are at fault as well if they complain about what they've been getting. Everything has been on the table for years. There aren't any secret deals or anything going on. All the information about features, or lack of features, has been readily available. And that is what generally ticks me off. People complaining about something they spent money something they wanted the game to be, not what they were told what it would be (which is exactly what it was in this case). Skill changes and lack cinematic oomph-complaints I can live with, that's all up to the individual in question whether they like it not. However, complaints from buying customers on the lack of offline-play, just to take an example, are completely wasted. It won't be changed, and people paying for the game have directly supported the choice Blizzard made in the matter. Whether it's a popular brand or not.

[GG you got me]

The difference between Ubisoft's method and Blizzard's is that while Ubisoft's games still take place on the actual computer, Blizzard is busy moving all functionality onto their servers. WoW takes place solely on their servers, SC2 takes place solely on their servers (unless you want to play a gimped offline version), and now D3 takes place solely on their servers. They're going somewhere with their games and Bnet 2.0. Ubisoft is just trying to stop piracy (and with a feeble attempt at it too).

The place they're going is no where that you want to be. And the entire point of D3's online only structure is very restrictive DRM and a way to ensure the validity of items on the RMT AH (which might as well be openly referred to as Titan Market Research AH). The mentality is no different than Ubisoft's. Blizzard's games just lend themselves to online community better.