Repetition in Perpetuity

This was brought up in the DCC a couple of days ago and I thought it warranted further discussion, because it's quite an interesting line of thought.

So, not too long ago, a review of the new Ratchet and Clank game was written (here) in which the author, instead of actually reviewing the game, goes off on a largely irrelevant spiel to the topic at hand. He does, however, raise a very interesting point: that the industry encourages repetition based on nostalgia. That gamers basically want the same thing over and over with only marginal improvements or changes until they ultimately get bored of the experience, and that this is causing stagnation and restricting developer freedom; or creating "boring art" as it is so eloquently put.

Considering past reactions to dramatic change in the past have been quite violent and/or polarizing, this isn't a point entirely without merit: consider the internet's reaction to The Wind Waker's art style back in 2001, or the reaction in general to Final Fantasy XIII or DmC Devil May Cry. Or, even more recently, the response to Metroid Prime: Federation Force. Consider the popularity of series such as Call of Duty, Halo, or even Pokemon, where the experience is fundamentally the same each time, just with a slightly different coat of paint. Of course, any dedicated fan to a series will be able to tell you exactly how one instalment of a long-running franchise differs from another, but when the core gameplay is fundamentally the same, is this a valid defense against nostalgia? But then, if it isn't broken, why fix it? SHOULD gameplay, or art style, or any other aspect of a game, NEED to evolve with time? Only through change can things improve, but this is not guaranteed, and change for change's sake is arguably counter-productive and serves only to antagonise fans of a series.

So, what say you? Are we trapped in a cycle of nostalgia-fuelled repetition, or are the changes and improvements made in new instalments of franchises a natural evolution that demonstrates a willingness to change and adapt? Are you satisfied with long-running franchises, or have you since grown bored of playing the same thing over and over? If there IS a "nostalgia culture" in video gaming, who would you say is responsible for this - the developers of games, the fans themselves, or the reviewers that sensationalise and promote these titles? And is this a bad thing? Discuss.

I think that ultimately, if something isn't broken, than don't change it. I think that's why you've seen a lot of repetiviness in series like Assassins Creed, Call of Duty, and Pokemon. However, I do think though that the popularity of said titles does allow a little bit of creative freedom that lower level companies might not be able to do when it comes to a sequel. Remember that these companies - Ubisoft, Activison, Nintendo - wouldn't take a huge hit if the game doesn't perform as well as its predecessors (a hit nonetheless though.)

This is sort of why those game formulas have been consistently the same except for recently. In my opinion, Call of Duty and Assassins Creed has ran its course which is why they have finally started to mix up the formula a little bit. Assassins Creed introduced navel battles in Black Flag; Call of Duty introduced these new kind of classes in BO3 (I'm not too knowledgeable in that as the last game I played was Ghosts but I believe that's what happened.) Essentially, the consumer is going to be a driving force when it comes to the inevitable changing in game formula/repetitiveness, but I don't think that it's going to be done until it's a good majority of users find an issue in it.

I don't believe that it's stunting developer freedom. No matter what, if there's a good game idea, it'll get produced. There are so many avenues these days, too. Crowdfunding and patreons are extremely popular, and our knowledge of game development and ability to teach it is so widespread that some people do it for the love. Undertale is a great example of a pilot project by one or two people that turned out to be a massive success. No need for any AAA funding.

I do believe however that companies like Nintendo, Ubisoft, EA and plenty of others, like to tug on our heart strings and rerelease games with updated graphics and very little gameplay change. I am entirely guilty of falling into Nintendo's Pokemon trap. I have bought FireRed, SoulSilver, Alpha Sapphire and the virtual console Yellow release, for no other reason than I loved the original games when I was younger. Nostalgia is a driving emotion to spend money. It works. Why not capitalize on that. I don't blame the companies.

Yes, Blizzard releases an expansion to World of Warcraft once every few years. Are they really making a new game doing that? No. But they also work on plenty of other games. Nintendo, as well. Yes, a lot of these companies will capitalize on nostalgia to sell product, but it's not their main gig. They also release plenty of original content alongside their nostalgic updates and expansions. I'm not so worried about the impact nostalgia-based releases will have on the future of game development.

El Héroe Oscuro said:

I think that ultimately, if something isn't broken, than don't change it. I think that's why you've seen a lot of repetiviness in series like Assassins Creed, Call of Duty, and Pokemon. However, I do think though that the popularity of said titles does allow a little bit of creative freedom that lower level companies might not be able to do when it comes to a sequel. Remember that these companies - Ubisoft, Activison, Nintendo - wouldn't take a huge hit if the game doesn't perform as well as its predecessors (a hit nonetheless though.)

Click to expand...

You saying that, one thing I've noticed is that it's typically AAA publishers who don't deviate from the standard formula even though they could afford to financially take a hit if they did and messed it up - Nintendo being the sole exception to this - whilst the smaller publishers seem to be willing to try anything and everything, and gameplay changes aren't uncommon between titles. I think it's more to do with reputation than sales, because they have a much greater attention placed on them by the media and dramatic changes to the formula are going to get lambasted to hell and back.

But then, I think this is what spinoffs and new IPs exist for: they give developers that creative freedom they might not have in their mainstream titles, where they may feel the need to cater to rigid fan expectations. Spinoffs are what turn series into franchises - Mario, Pokemon, Final Fantasy; even The Legend of Zelda is starting to get spinoffs now like Triforce Heroes and Hyrule Warriors, which is itself a spinoff of another franchise - and they have no rules or boundaries. It's all about the marketing and labelling, I think.




Anyways, the idea that the industry encourages repetition is a valid one in my opinion, but the idea that this restricts creative freedom? Bollocks. All it really does is define a series as a series. Fans might expect certain things of a mothership Final Fantasy or Pokemon title, but they expect nothing from spinoffs. Bigger developers that have to worry about their reputation can create spinoffs to explore other ideas, and smaller developers that fit into that niche category can do more or less whatever the hell they want, because they don't have a reputation to worry about, all they need to worry about is making sure ends meet. Two completely different business types, and neither are really tied down by fan expectations to any real degree.