Why are Gamers So Afraid of Change?

Hardcore Gamer: Developers walk a thin line when changing any aspect of a game for its sequel. It's anybody's guess whether they will be praised for innovation or taken out to the stockades for crimes against a beloved franchise. More often than not, any change to a franchise in a sequel is met with instant criticism, but one has to wonder: what's the real virtue of a game being similar to its predecessor?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
3-4-51473d ago

People don't mind change, they just don't like when the change is worse than what they had before.

1473d ago
randomass1711473d ago

People demand change in Call of Duty all the time. The criticism is very selective though.

user65409481473d ago

Yet people keep buying it despite the same engine, gameplay, etc.

That's the point of the article...most gamers hate change, and those who ask for it yet don't receive the change (ie: cod fans) just buy it anyway.

That's why my sights are locked on to indie games. "AAA" nowadays means rehash about 75% of the time, sadly.

andydalum1473d ago

Depends on the franchise you like like Dragon age people hated the 2nd at least online they did so what do they do . . . make the new one vastly better. Mass Effect already talking about some good changes to the new game.

BUT one thing i think people forget about change is you have to be smart about it because people have time invested into games. Time is the most valuable thing we have if let's say madden says screw it we only do minor changes and redoes everything will take multiple maddens to get it right. Why would i want that another 6 years for a revamped madden or the one i have come to enjoy year in and year out.

AAA games get called out for not changing but if they change to much they can ruin a franchise because to redo everything from ground up takes a long time to perfect. If u enjoy it buy it, if not find another IP to invest your time and money into.

kalkano1473d ago

If it's drastically different from the series, it doesn't belong in the series. Make it a NEW series. If you want to use the series name to increase sales, you'll have to deal with the backlash. That's not our problem.

Kivespussi1473d ago (Edited 1473d ago )

I agree. Many series change the formula from old games for sequels only to piss off old fans (for example; Devil May Cry) and even though the new game would be great, it would be still compared to the old one and criticized how the devs changed it. If the devs want a game with the new mechanics, they should start a new IP.

Still, the problem is that AAA games usually follow the same formula. Even though there would be a new IP from an AAA studio, it would still do the same thing that's selling right now. That again means the devs aren't going to try new things and innovate, instead wee see the same games in different covers yeach year

levian1473d ago

Agreed. I think Demon's Souls and Dark Souls was somewhat of a good example of this. Dark Souls was a "spiritual successor" and not a sequel, so fans weren't terribly upset when certain aspects changed.

Same goes for most Final Fantasy games. You know what to expect of a Final Fantasy, but you know the story and the gameplay is going to be different each time

kalkano1473d ago

"Same goes for most Final Fantasy games. You know what to expect of a Final Fantasy, but you know the story and the gameplay is going to be different each time"

Yes, but now they've completely changed genres. Once they completely jumped to action-RPG, the same thing happened to Final Fantasy. Really, Final Fantasy has been an entirely new franchise since the merger.

levian1473d ago

I agree and disagree to an extent. Final Fantasy Tactics deviated from the normal combat, so I don't see why them playing with different combat styles is much of a shock.

I don't like SE's most recent stuff (13 series), but I'm okay with XV, mostly because it's a genre I like more than turn based combat. And also because I don't come to Final Fantasy for the turn based combat - I come for the story, the exploration and secrets, some cool mechanics.

This is probably why I've liked most FF games besides the 13 series, even 12 which most people don't like. They all have awesome elements to them that I like, the exploration and secrets and story. I didn't care if it was turn based, tactical based, or an action RPG. 13 had a more standard FF combat style but no exploration until late into the game, by which time I didn't care anymore and just wanted to beat it as quickly as possible.

kalkano1473d ago

^ Tactics is a spinoff. I know you'll say XV was initially a spinoff, but that was SE's plan. Versus XIII turning into XV is a "bait and switch" to keep old fans on board. It didn't work as well as they hoped.

levian1472d ago

You do have a point about it being a spin off, and no I'd agree that them switching Versus XIII to XV was definitely a bit of a bait and switch. They had been working on it so long and being nearly done they probably figured they could use it to appease FF fans about getting another main FF title.

All I was trying to say was we know a lot of FF fans enjoyed Tactics which had a different battle system, and that was how I saw XV.

But you're right, that brings us back to the topic at hand - if you're changing the core gameplay, make it a new series. They did make it a "new series" in the fact that it was a spin off, but now it's a main game. I can see why that upsets some people. I personally don't have any problem with it because like I said, I enjoy action RPG combat more than turn based. If it was the other way around though I'd be pissed.

It happened for me with the Kingdom Hearts games. I had played 1 and 2 but never had the handheld systems for the spin off titles. They ended up making these so called "spin offs" directly tied into the story. I had heard how they made combat into some kind of card game and I was pissed about it because I liked it's normal battle style. I'm probably wrong about it being a card battle system but it's forever put me off those games.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1472d ago
AnotherProGamer1473d ago (Edited 1473d ago )

Thief (2014) and Bioshock Infinite received a lot of flak because it removed and dumbed down many aspects that made the original great, gamers like change if they are improving the gameplay mechanics i.e Street Fighter 2

curtis921473d ago

Because usually it's in the name of 'appealing to the masses' and involves heavily diluting what makes games enjoyable.

NiteX1473d ago

The recent Sacred 3 is a great example.

ShaunCameron1473d ago

That's because the video games industry, namely the home console one, is dependent on the mass market for its success.

Show all comments (36)
The story is too old to be commented.