If you had to choose: Evolution of expected gameplay or new gameplay and why?

[Damian79]

What i mean by expected gameplay, like how SW:TOR improved on WoW in a lot of areas.  But didnt really add anything really new.

What i mean by new gameplay, a game that plays very very differently to other games of the same genre.



I am a new gameplay person.  I get sick of similar gameplay quickly and can over look things if there is new gameplay.  I think that comes from playing pretty much nothing but RPG's when an RPG introduces something fresh I over look a lot of things.  Like i only got through SW:TOR because I had a few friends to play it with.  With GW2 i only had one friend to play it with but i enjoyed it more than SW:TOR and over looked a lot of things because the gameplay felt "fresh".

[Stoney Mason]

I'll generally take strong refinement of a good concept versus a new thing. We all want the new thing every so often otherwise things get boring and stale. But I'm of the belief that genuinely great new things are very rare and not attainable by most devs. With that being the reality I would prefer most of them concentrate on refining existing paradigms and benefiting and iterating on  the good work other devs have already done.

[Himu]

I like things that are new and fresh that are also iterative. Reiterations can get old. But "innovations" can also result in very eh software. All of my favorite games do something unique to separate themselves from the pack, but aren't wholly original ideas, and are mere iterations or a different take on a traditional genre. So yeah, Resident Evil 4 is a new take on Resident Evil, but it isn't a completely revolutionary game and still uses some elements of the older games. Shenmue, Jet Set Radio, GTAIII, and FF8 are similar. Games should be distinct, but not so distinct that they are alienating. For example, I can't stand SaGa games. Theyre too weird for me. But I'll take something like Valkyrie Profile 2 any day.

That said, I do enjoy iterative games a lot and they serve their purpose. But even the Musou games do something to make themselves distinct from another, and that's something that's very important to me.

Still, a good game is a good game. DQIX is my favorite ds game, but it is the same old shit. But I LIKE the same old shit.

It just bothers me when certain genres remain static. I think the best example of that would be fighting games. They haven't really evolved in like ten years. But I still like them.l even though I wish they'd do more experimental games like Virtua Fighter 3.

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

while I love seeing clever new features in games (2008 Alone in the Dark's great inventory system, chapter skipping), on the whole, I'd rather be playing something that's fully polished and distinct in its aesthetics or story then necessarily in its gameplay (see also Alone in the Dark).

[Bebpo]

i'm with stoney, generally. 

i'm at the age where i don't really care about innovation anymore, i just want the same nostalgic dish i had when i was kid served up with some new spices and seasonings.

I'm the exact opposite.

For story-based games, I'm ok with little innovation because the draw is the unique original story each game has and their potential to be an interesting tale to supplement the traditional gaming mechanisms (aka most point & click adventure games & rpgs, though many rpgs do innovate with the battle system as well).

For non-story/gameplay stuff, I need something fresh and unique to make it worth my time.  I've got like hundreds of steam games in my backlog, but only a handful of thousands of hours free during the span of my life for gaming, so I want to use the time to play interesting games.  It's why I really liked the old Suda directed titles.  For me a flawed interesting game is more worth my time than a polished generic game that doesn't attempt to bring anything new to the table.  I feel the same way about movies too.

[Himu]

" For me a flawed interesting game is more worth my time than a polished generic game that doesn't attempt to bring anything new to the table.  I feel the same way about movies too."

This. That said, there's nothing wrong with tradition. Take DQ for instance, I wouldn't call it generic by a stretch, but each new game irons out past games problems which results in a very polished game experience. It is the traditional RPG perfected. But there's a new DQ only every few years, so each new one feels like an event. But every other game? I don't respect being safe. I just don't. Something about playing it safe instantly turns me off. So then you have those people who complained about Suikoden III being too different from II and wah wah so in IV they make it the most generic thing possible for nostalgia points. I feel the same way about FFIX, but at least that's a good game.

[Yulwei]

Depends on the genre and series really. When it comes to say, Street Fighter, I wouldn't want Capcom to turn the series into an adventure game or RPG, etc. I want them to innovate, sure, but within the confines of the established Street Fighter framework.

[Bebpo]

I agree, and they can definitely innovate within the genre.  Though I would totally not be against a Tobal style adventure mode or a story mode with the length and complexity that Arc System Works fighters have.  Tekken ball was always good fun   There's always stuff you can do with every genre.  SFIV, even with it's main goal to just replicate SFII, did some great stuff like the focus attack system.

[Great Rumbler]

Is it fun? Yes/No.

That's all I care about anymore.

[tiesto]

It depends... sometimes I like the tried and true, sometimes I like innovation for innovation's sake (especially 'wacky jappy' stuff). I usually don't like when they try to take a consistent, tried-and-true franchise and innovate with it just for the hell of it.