Changing it up

[Strangelove]

Here's a kind of weird question Ive been meaning to ask:

 

How do you guys feel about games that try to change what works really well? That try to change the established mechanics?

I bring it up because it reminds of the shit Killzone 2 got. Even to this day Im adamant that people feel CoD has the best first person mechanics. People love how it plays and I think every FPS game has adopted or tried to adopt the way CoD plays to please fans. Same thing with Gears of War. Cover based shooters all try to replicate the gameplay because its a formula people loved. It works and it works damn well.

I think Killzone 2 tried to bring its own brand of fps shooting and people were not willing to accept it. Maybe CoD was better. But then again, thats what were all used to.

Are people comfortable with developers taking that kind of risk? Changing what works so they can individualize themselves? Or should we stick to CoD's shooting and GoW's cover mechanics? Should we stick to what already works? Should we encourage it?

 

Im torn because its my money and im spending it on a game and I want to like it and play it and I feel that changing something I already like can screw it up. I like the familiar. I like being able to transfer my skills in one game to another.

But I also think the 8 bit and 16 bit days thrived on being different. Personally I think Mario perfected the jump and run. It felt good, but Sonic, Castlevania, and even Earthworm Jim had different mechanics. In old Castlevania games you couldnt adjust the jump midair, you were stuck once you jumped. You couldnt change it. You couldn't even run in those games. Every jump was exactly the same and it felt rigid, and the gameplay was made around those mechanics to complement it.

Thats the way a lot of people liked it apparently. I personally hated it.

 

Is there still room for that sort of thing nowadays? I find people dont like any kind of change anymore. I think its strange.

I hope I made some sense.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I think it's important to individualize yourselves as long as it fits the style game. Killzone 2 is a gritty game where you feel like you're at war, and part of that is because your character has weight and so do the enemies, rather than everyone running around too fast and the enemies feeling like cardboard cutouts. When you drop that you become just another imitator. Either way you're not likely to top the king in the genre so you might as well do something else that works on its own to get people interested. You should learn to adapt. Just in terms of hardware I have no problem switching between the 2 controllers and a m+kb. The first person market in particular has a huge variety when you think about it: CoD feels different than Battlefield which is different than Killzone which is different than Bioshock etc etc. If you hated that back in the day... well it's easier now as many games retain a lot of the same characteristics (regenerating health, similar weapon systems, looking down the sights, etc) compared to what they used to do.

 

Anyways, it's hard to talk about "people." Who are these people? The game market has expanded greatly this past generation. It's a matter of what market the game is trying to appeal to.

 

PS: This is very off-topic as it's not about game engines at all.

[TheMightyEthan]

While you're never going to topple the leader, if you're similar enough you might attract some of its audience to play your game too. That said, I think games should try to distinguish themselves, but there's a very fine line between that and reinventing the wheel for no good reason. Devs just need to try to find the right balance between using what's worked in other games and doing something with its own unique feel (I know easier said than done).