Game Success or Failure

Should developers stick to what they know ?

by dkpatriach:

©2008 David Hilton:

A change is as good as a holiday, they say.  People get tired of doing the same thing over and over so it shouldn’t be a surprise that game studios may feel the same way too.  In an industry plagued with safe sequels and cliche copycats it should be a good thing when a game studio decides to try something moderately or even completely new.  Unfortunately, this isn’t always so and what results can be average, or worse, a complete disaster.

With the news that Ubisoft acquired Massive Entertainment, the game studio responsible for the successful RTS (Real Time Strategy) World In Conflict series, it surprised many to hear that the studio will not be working on a strategy game but a ‘fresh’ MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online) game.  Depending on what form this game takes it still seems like an unusual ask for a developer used to a very specific genre.

In the past there has been some some evidence that changes from established genres or franchises have not worked terribly well.

Free Radical, who are famous for the excellent Timesplitters games, decided to try their hand at a more serious space marine shooter called Haze for the PS3 and both the gaming critics and public were horrified at the very average results.

Timesplitters was a satirical, semi-cartoony, fast-paced, simple shooter with a top notch multiplayer game (with bots!) that was all about fun.  Haze was a generic copycat shooter that reminded me of another average game, Turok, but without the extra dimension of the dinosaurs.  Next up for the studio is Timesplitters 4, and that can only be a good thing.

Lucas Arts, who make Star Wars and Indiana Jones games for the most part, tried to be innovative for this gen consoles with the terrain changing game Fracture.  While Fracture wasn’t technically a failure, it certainly wasn’t a game that grabbed much attention or acclaim.

It had some interesting features which were probably over-used and the typical generic story and game world.  It didn’t feel that new, despite the new ideas.

Silicon Knights produced the cult favourite game for the Gamecube Eternal Darkness but interestingly turned away from a sequel to work on something new and different.  It took a very long time for the release of the first chapter in a trilogy based on slashing action and Norse cyber-mythology, but Too Human was finally released this year for the 360.

Some really enjoyed it and appreciated the different style while others loathed it with passion.  Review results were varied but it is certain that it did not live up to hopes or the success of Eternal Darkness.  Gamers wanted a new gen re-imagining of Eternal Darkness or a sequel, but so far haven’t got either.  Hopefully Silicon Knights go back to where they achieved success and do so again.

Bethesda, responsible for excellent quality RPG (Role Playing Game) titles like Oblivion and the recent Fallout 3, tried their hand at a strategy-action title using the Star Trek universe for the 360 called Star Trek: Legacy.  It wasn’t a great title, unfortunately.

While fun could be had and it was certainly a great way for fans to revisit the various series’ ships and characters, the title was plagued with camera and control issues.  It was not nearly as polished as Bethesda’s RPG titles.

Blizzard Entertainment, who are famous for their Warcraft and Starcraft RTS games, decided in 2002 that they would make a FPS (First Person Shooter) based on the Starcraft universe.  Everyone seemed to welcome Starcraft: Ghost.  Though the game’s development seemed to have deeply progressed, it was shelved indefinitely in 2006.

Did they realise that it wouldn’t have lived up to expectation?  They certainly seemed to decide it was better to go back and focus on a second Starcraft strategy title, which is what they are working on now.

Criterion is the development studio who brought top-notch arcade racing games titled Burnout to both this gen and previous gen consoles, but decided to try something new last generation with a fast paced shooter game called Black.  It was a dramatic change in direction that split shooter fans down the middle into hate it-love it camps.

Fans loved the fast pace and destructibility but haters disliked the mundane linear repetitive characterless nature of it and even called it a ‘tech demo’.  Though rumours of a Black sequel for this generation consoles has persisted, the company insists it isn’t going back.

Exceptions to the rule certainly do apply, though.  Dice, the Swedish developer owned by EA who made the Battlefield shooter games including the excellent recent Battlefield: Bad Company, have tried something fresh and new called Mirror’s Edge, which involves very little shooting at all.

Instead it is a First Person free-running (parkour) game set in an authoritarian future where you mostly run fast and jump around the clean vibrant environments, disarming police, and delivering messages.  You have to really see your environment and make quick decisions on how to traverse it and it is like nothing currently in the video game market.

While the game will certainly not suit everyone (I found that there were too many buttons to quickly remember and use myself) there are many, including most critics, who really enjoy the fresh approach.

So will Bungie’s next project in the Halo universe succeed without Master Chief, the icon of both the Xbox console and their Halo games?  Their next project is Halo 3: Recon and looks to be more like a Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter game in the Halo universe.  Will leaving their normal gameplay style be a success or a failure?  Only time will tell.

So – What does all this mean to the gamer?

It is important that developers try to strive to do something new or innovative.  Many gamers already lament current gaming as mostly being stale and dominated by the need to push out sure-fire hit sequels.  If gaming is to become more recognisable as an ‘art form’ as well as entertainment, then pushing out titles that will sell well but offer nothing new will not achieve that.

However, it is also clear that studios who try to go in new directions often fall on their faces and the result is financial and critical failure.  In the current economic climate this fear of failure may restrict the risks publishers and studios are willing to make in the future.

Still, game studios used to a certain game style may be best served by innovating within that style rather than trying to jump into another one.

So what do you think?  Should game studios stick to what they know?  Can you think of more failure or success stories where a studio has tried to head in a new direction?  Please leave a comment below with your opinions.

©2008 David Hilton:

Share us