To avoid disappointment

[Sidez]

It doesn't matter too much if F-Zero, Starfox 2, VO Marz and SVC turn out to be crap as I have F-Zero X, Starfox 64, VOOT and CVS2.

It was a shame that Metroid Fusion, DMC2 and Wipeout Fusion turned out to be awful but it doesn't matter as I have Super Metroid, DMC and Wipeout XL.

Anyone else feel the same? I personally don't need multiples of what is essentielly the same sort of game. If a sequel is a letdown then that in no way detracts from the original so it's no great loss but a wasted oppurtunity. More people should think like this

I've been thinking like this for years. This is always why I've been for innovation and developers taking chances. Imo what's the point of say the new Starfox playing identically as the old one. You might as well just play the old one. If the new direction with Starfox works, then we have a new style of game to play, if it doesn't then we still have the old one.

It depends in a way though. F-Zero X for example had great analogue control, 60fps and clean graphics. Sure the detail wasn't there but the look resulted in something very faithful to the original. Something like RRV though resulted in great 60fps graphics, lovely detail and analogue control so it was a worthy sequel.

But yeah I definately see what you mean.

[Smeghead]

I've been thinking like this for years. This is always why I've been for innovation and developers taking chances. Imo what's the point of say the new Starfox playing identically as the old one. You might as well just play the old one. If the new direction with Starfox works, then we have a new style of game to play, if it doesn't then we still have the old one.

Fair enough, but in the case of Jet Set Radio - JSRF, all I wanted from that, was a much better looking slightly tweaked JSR, I ended up with something so radically altered it was barely recognisable from it's prequel and imo inferior in just about every way

It didn't work, but it's also most likely killed the chances of every seeing a true JSR followup.

[Flojomojo]

It's the automatic assumption of new being better that is likely to change over time as technology becomes irrelevant.

I think you're right. When we go to a concert or a movie, or buy a DVD or CD, we expect a certain level of technical competence. Once that threshold is passed, we focus on the artistic merits of the performance.

With games, I'd say we're at the point where we've stopped oohing and aahing at the graphics and 5.1 sound, just as we've stopped being impressed by the clarity and random access of music played through a CD player. People should be no more thrilled by the HALO 2 trailer than they are by the "shuffle" feature on a cheapo Discman.

What happens when technology peaks? I guess there will always be the hardcore audiophile types who need to have a greater fill rate or bumpmapper engine, but most people will focus on content.

I would love to see the extension of the 5-year console lifespan. The idea of GameCube 2 or XBOX 2 really turns me off since the current iterations aren't exactly tapped out. I really thought this cycle would be longer than the last one rather than shorter.

[Afterbirth]

We're at stage now where-by the 8,16 and 32 bit genres have been done to perfection. i cannot imagine many more games, that will take these genres to perfection. As for arcade quality 60fps, we're nearly there, although i still feel there is someway to go.

I do feel the the genres are getting a bit limited. Some, like football can constantly be updated, but others, like 2D fighting, are done and just about dusted. Even if they were perfected more, theres plenty of options. The same could be levelled a 2D shooters too, but before i get flamed for saying that, just think about how you would update them, and chances are, its been bettered. But then we're not all game designers.
Whilst Atari used to continually provide innovative genres/titles, they were only done once and rarely repeated. I think this says something.

With the advent of commercial gaming consoles, and simple updates (as sidez states) consistantly being churned out, the only thing that can sell us is the graphics because are eyes are argueably are main sense, and the one game companies focus (sic) on.
The reaction to GT4 is prime example of that.
Goodnight.

[Flojomojo]

Check out this well-presented argument that states why graphics aren't going to impress us anymore (registration required). I just viewed the slides, but plan to listen to the whole thing later:

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20030409/rubin_01.shtml

It's the founder of Naughty Dog (Crash Bandicoot, Jak & Daxter) talking about how graphics have peaked and the industry is going to have to find some other "hook" for customers such as "attachment" (safe bets like clones, sequels, licenses) and originality/innovation (riskier).

It's worth it to register on this site IMHO as the information is very interesting.

[Afterbirth]

It might not impress the hardcore/long termer gamers, but, and i use a well know phrase here, consumers and newbies will
"spooge their pants", when GT4 blows up.
People on this site were shocked, and i even thought what certain mags were saying was complete bollocks.
I was duly humbled having read PSM (esp. about the 100 tracks).

[replicant]

I really do not understand why innovation matters so much to some people. Surely if a game is enjoyable it is a worthwhile experience. So what if Starfox plays like Starfox 64. That is a good thing, and coupled with an expected leap in graphics it is a worthy of your time.

I think if people get too blinded by innovation in sequels that they will miss out in playing some strong titles simply because they continue to carry the franchise down a similar path. Remember that the fan of these games like the franchise for a reason, and if it was to change too much alientation is possible e.g. R: Racing Evolution.

Personally I would rather play a new identical Starfox on my cube rather than having to play something original and dire like Enter the Matrix. More innovativer yes, but the quality is lacking. Quality before innovation.

[Treble]

In the West, you have to realise that certain games act only as 'testbeds' for new technology, and do not get seen by the majority of the public.

Put it this way: the last Tomb Raider the public remember ran on the PSX; the last Resident Evil they saw was a port of an early Dreamcast game; the last Gran Turismo was designed early-on in the PS2's life.

The general public don't see things like Biohazard 4 videos, or Apex running, and think 'That's what my copy of Resi Evil/GT4 will look like! Omg, wtf' etc. - it's all brand new to them on release. Only people like us see the new technologies slowly building towards something better. Most people in the Western world only see huge leaps forwards in graphical excellence, as they follow franchises and licensed games.

I'm not sure what this means fully, but anyone can work out these people are going to buy a game based on its visuals alone, as Joe Public must see such technological innovation and think it equates with gameplay innovation too, which is only natural.