Streamlined vs. dumbed-down - great progressive game design article

[ella guro]

I haven't read most of this thread, so I can't comment on people's posts.

But I think the point made in the article is good, though I don't really like the guy's writing style. The purpose of games is to provide an enjoyable, immersive experience. When you put so much emphasis and detail into the basic mechanics and make them so complicated, I think it takes away from what makes games fun in the first place. And it also becomes really frustrating to play, unless you have the patience to figure out every detail.

I mean, let's say there's a difficult jump in a game you have to make. The game designers could either make you have to use some kind of special button combo that's hard to pull off for some kind of special super jump, or they could find ways in the game for the player to be creative and find their own way of making that jump. Sure, maybe the first feels rewarding to the people who have put in the time and know how to do it. And maybe those people feel like other people should have to put in the time because they did. But really, is that what's important in a game? Wouldn't you rather be rewarded for accomplishing something substantial that took a high level of strategy and puzzle-solving, rather than just feeling accomplished because you can hit buttons with the right timing to pull off some difficult move? The former is just so much more immersive.

One of the reasons a game like Half-Life is so good is that its mechanics are such basic, easy FPS fare that the designers could put all their concentration on throwing the player into a ton of different crazy situations. When you enter the game, it already feels so natural, like there's no a barrier between you and who you're controlling. The challenge is in reflexes and puzzle-solving, not in the basic mechanics. And the experience is a lot more memorable and fun because of that.

So I think it's inevitable and a good thing that more games are going in this direction.

[Arcana]

There's a lot of room for different "product groups" to provide varying game experiences.

The same company can (and does) release different games with different names to fit varying styles of gameplay.

The problem of course is that there is a lower demand for deep, involving games now overall - for some reason people are less inclined to number crunch and micromanage nowadays.

So there's a large trend toward the streamlining of games now. Simply, they sell better.

[zircon]

Honestly the reason why we got into all that number-crunching to begin with was because the technology didn't exist for anything else. Turn-based, numerical battle systems were developed because it just wasn't possible to create the sort of experience that early RPG designers actually wanted the players to have. They weren't setting out to make turn-based, number-heavy RPGs because those were the most fun, but because that is all they could do for games of the scale they were imagining.

20 years later and we're still seeing games with archaic mechanics that, at the time they were developed, were essentially placeholders for something cooler. It's bizzarre that people have gotten attached to those mechanics, if you think about it.

[The Vagrance]

20 years later and we're still seeing games with archaic mechanics that, at the time they were developed, were essentially placeholders for something cooler. It's bizzarre that people have gotten attached to those mechanics, if you think about it.

I can't agree with you more on this.

[JackKieser]

I was initially upset about that too, until I went through the Wards again in the first game, and honestly there's not a lot down there. A few sidequests are centred there and it did have a nice atmosphere, but the developers obviously felt that that area didn't have a purpose in the second game and might even seem a little bit redundant considering Omega (IIRC, I'm more familiar with ME1 planets than ME2 ones right now) was basically the Wards pt. 2.

Well, I fully understand that adding new events and things to do to the Wards/Presidium would have taken time/resources, but I've always been the kind of person to not like it when sequels leave out already-made resources. I mean, you already have the models/collision data, and that's the hardest part, and making some more little quests, to me, is worth making the game world a more convincing place. Honestly, I'd rather have all the areas from the first game make a second appearance than have all those codex entries; imagine how long those took to write?

As for the characters talking to each other; don't they talk to each other as you walk around anyway? I may be thinking of Dragon Age because I know that game does it but I'm almost positive ME2 does it as well. Iono, ultimately its not the most vital thing in the world to me because any given two characters only have like, 4 or 5 lines they can talk about in the elevators anyway.

Characters say things while you walk, sometimes, maybe... but they never actually converse to each other. It's when they interact with each other that makes the game world more immersive and fleshed out, and considering how much Bioware works on making your secondaries into believable characters, I think it's odd to leave out even the small things... because it's the details that make the world.

Play through ME1 again. I'm not saying ME2's AI is flawless but its certainly smarter than the AI in ME1.

Dude... I've played through it literally 9 times.

How is that stupid? Each differing gun of a weapon type (different pistols, shotguns, etc.) has a very clear difference, more so than ones I discovered in the original. Granted the shotguns somehow got more useless but having clear, differing weapons is a good thing and still gives people the option of a different strategy. You're complaining about only 25 distinct, fairly equal weapons? That's a lot of choice and way better than 100 or so slightly differing weapons (excluding the different levels of them, which again, is unnecessary).

It's stupid because there is NO REASON to ever use older guns in ME2, except for the case of the Heavy Pistol (because of the ammo count). Look at MEWiki; after you actually compare the stats, there really is 0 reason to use an older gun once the game hands you your new gun. Which is another thing that's an utterly stupid regression on Bioware's part: why is the game handing me my guns like I'm a freaking toddler? I can find things myself, and honestly, clocking in at just about 25-30 hours, this game needs all it can to extend the game experience. I'd rather have 100 guns that require me to think and actually make decisions because of their minute pros/cons than have the game tell me, "Hey, you reached level 4, time to use a new gun!"

That's kinda the whole point though of (I'm so sick of this word already) streamlining the game though; you take stuff out that just isn't working right. It sucks that you're not enjoying it as much and it would be irrational to think everyone would like the changes, but I'll argue that they were definitely smart changes and a move in the right direction. Not only that, but the trend of streamlining in games as a whole is a good one, simply because a fair number of games were becoming increasingly inundated with various features that weren't needed.

No no no no... you take out the things that can't be fixed. You fix the things that don't work. The Mako wasn't broken... it just needed some control refinement and better places to explore. Instead, they scrapped it entirely, taking out a part of the game that, personally, I enjoyed (and knew many people who also enjoyed it, if not for the planets they were forced to explore).

ME1 wasn't really full of crap that wasn't needed, because no one complained about it then, did they? Read the reviews of the first game; people had issues with the planets, Mako controls, and inventory system. No one was bitching about how many skills there were... just that the cooldowns were kind of long (which was fixed!). Bioware scrapped a whole bunch of stuff that wasn't unfixable... because it was easier.

I'm not against complexity at all, but not all game franchises need to have a severe amount of depth to them, and Mass Effect is one of those franchises. There's a quote about design that applies to games as well: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoinè De Saint-Exupéry.

Mass Effect doesn't need to have a severe amount of depth at all, and that's not what's being argued. It has almost NO depth at all now, and that's the problem. Ok, I can curve my Warp now. Yay. Meanwhile, I lost every statistical thing that I love about RPGs in general. Honestly, for as good as ME2 is, it wasn't worth it to lose all of the RPG things that I did. I will honestly never love ME2 as much as I loved ME1 because it got the RPG nerf-stick so hard... and I'm certainly not alone here.

Honestly the reason why we got into all that number-crunching to begin with was because the technology didn't exist for anything else. Turn-based, numerical battle systems were developed because it just wasn't possible to create the sort of experience that early RPG designers actually wanted the players to have. They weren't setting out to make turn-based, number-heavy RPGs because those were the most fun, but because that is all they could do for games of the scale they were imagining.

Citations, please? I'd love to know how you know this so well, because that seems like important info.

20 years later and we're still seeing games with archaic mechanics that, at the time they were developed, were essentially placeholders for something cooler. It's bizzarre that people have gotten attached to those mechanics, if you think about it.

Wow, I may not like ME2, but I'm not about to say no one should like it. It's kind of ballsy for you to say that there are people liking something that they shouldn't be, and be insinuating that they should stop.

[zircon]

Citations, please? I'd love to know how you know this so well, because that seems like important info.

I can't give you citations, but it's self-evident from the way the games were designed. For example, FF1 uses recolored sprites and has few animations. It's also a huge game, both in terms of memory size and actual gameplay content. Given the NES' limitations it stands to reason that they were simply unable to, say, animate a ton of monsters, have a real-time battle system, AI for your party, etc. By simplifying the battle system to a turn-based, largely textual approach they could still present the entire adventure, with lots of monsters, spells and treasure, while staying within the system limitations.

It's actually even MORE evident if you look at the history of RPGs before the computer gaming era. Adding numerical elements (basic score keeping, dice rolls) was necessary to quantify any kind of game, and if you read up on Wikipedia you'll see that games had used various numerical elements for centuries prior to D&D. If my army attacks your army, it's too vague to say I won - how much did I win by? What was the result? How many of your pieces/soldiers died? How can we determine who "wins" to begin with? And so on.

Turn-based systems were logically a necessity for any game with numerical quantification as well. It would make no sense for a board game or pen and paper RPG to take place in real-time for a number of logistical reasons, not the least of which is the inability for humans to make all the calculations and dice rolls every second. A turn-based system neatly solves all those logistical problems. But many of those problems disappear when entering the realm of computers and consoles.

So, you can look at it from the historical angle too, and STILL see that a lot of the mechanics (heavy numerical emphasis, turn-based systems) were carryovers from physical games which required those limitations. Really, I can't speak highly enough about Demon's Souls as a game that is truly elegant in integrating challenging, exciting real-time combat with rich customization while not sacrificing any depth whatsoever.

Wow, I may not like ME2, but I'm not about to say no one should like it. It's kind of ballsy for you to say that there are people liking something that they shouldn't be, and be insinuating that they should stop.

When did I say no one should like it? Or anything about "should" or "shouldn't"? I just said that it was weird that so many people have become attached to mechanics that arose solely because more advanced mechanics weren't possible. I would say the same thing of chiptunes or General MIDI soundfonts from 1992, 8-bit graphics, the way people like tape or vinyl hiss, or a million other things.

You said earlier that it was "important info" whether the designers were being intentionally limiting or doing so because of the system limitations, but from your perspective... why would it be? All the composers who wrote for the NES and other early systems were most definitely NOT being intentionally limiting, but that didn't stop an entire subculture from being formed around that sound.

[ella guro]

Citations, please? I'd love to know how you know this so well, because that seems like important info.

Asking for citations seems to be a bit excessive for a debate like this (not to mention very difficult since there isn't a lot written about this kind of subject until very recently). I wonder how you can be a gamer and not notice the trends that zircon mentioned.

Though I think there were older games that managed to be very immersive within their limitations and not detail-oriented, but it definitely was more of a trend.

[JackKieser]

I'm kind of getting tired of multiquoting and breaking up posts, so I'll just do this.

@Zircon: I've just come from a 500+ page war on SWF about Metaknight in which a physics major self-parsed, analyzed, and graphed out 13 months worth of tournament data to prove a point; "self-evidence" won't cut if for me, personally. If you say you know how 80's game designers were thinking, I'm going to want to know how, and just saying "oh, there were trends somewhere" doesn't really help me understand your point of view.

That being said, we're working with computer games; everything will always be numeric. Even shooters are numeric. That's a trend that will never go away; play Heavy Rain enough, and I guarantee you you'll be able to boil it down to a set of static decisions and will be able to mathematically plot down any path you want. If you're making a game in a genre that not only accepted this early on, but embraced it, has embraced it ever since, and shows no signs of ending said embracing, trying to take out as much of that math as possible probably isn't such a good move.

@Liz: What trends did he really mention, exactly? He said that games usually, if not always, have numbers, even non-computer games. Ok, that's all well and good. He talks about turn-based stuff, which is irrelevant because we're talking about ME2, and even so, who cares? It's not like turn-based games are inferior or anything. Old styles survive because they work and are good; there is a reason lots of buildings still use Grecian column styles from the B.C. ages... because they work.

[ella guro]

You said earlier that it was "important info" whether the designers were being intentionally limiting or doing so because of the system limitations, but from your perspective... why would it be? All the composers who wrote for the NES and other early systems were most definitely NOT being intentionally limiting, but that didn't stop an entire subculture from being formed around that sound.

This is getting a bit off-topic, but an interesting point. I think what you said here about game music is a little different. One of the reasons people have grown attached to NES/SNES era music is because, regardless of the original intentions behind the music, there is nothing else that sounds like it. Today, videogame soundtracks often seem to aspire to sound exactly like other kinds of music, and it makes them generally less distinctive or memorable. Not that there's necessarily something wrong with that. But that's one area where I'd say that limitations definitely contributed a lot to the quality of music that was produced, even though those limitations weren't really intended.

When there's a lot of number crunching or detail-oriented stuff game-play wise, it certainly is a different kind of experience. And I don't necessarily think it's a bad one. But I do think it's evolution for mainstream games to move more towards making the situations encountered in the game complex and keeping the mechanics fairly basic. And I also have trouble saying that some of what drives some people's outcry at the dumbing down of games is pride at the amount of time they've spent with games (and therefore feeling like other people should have to put in the time they have) or just nostalgia. But I don't really think people's attachment to old game music is the same way. Because I couldn't say game music is evolving by becoming less distinctive. I think most developers are a long way from figuring out how to use really utilize music and sound in a game. I think many are frightened with the idea of doing something that seems too "game"-y or childish.

[ella guro]

@Liz: What trends did he really mention, exactly? He said that games usually, if not always, have numbers, even non-computer games. Ok, that's all well and good. He talks about turn-based stuff, which is irrelevant because we're talking about ME2, and even so, who cares? It's not like turn-based games are inferior or anything. Old styles survive because they work and are good; there is a reason lots of buildings still use Grecian column styles from the B.C. ages... because they work.

I think I'm gonna take a few steps back on what I said so I can clarify myself: I don't necessarily think that there's something wrong with lots and lots of micromanagement in a game. I don't generally like doing it...but I know there are many people who do. But I do think it's evolution for games to move further in the other direction, and the micromanagement style games to be pushed more to the fringes. Because I don't think the intentions are just commercial or it just represents a dumbing down to attract n00bs, more that it's concentrated effort to shift the focus of the gameplay now that it's much more possible to do that.

[zircon]

Liz; Yeah, I understand what you're saying overall, but I don't think it really invalidates my point. You're obviously a big fan of 8-bit music, but many people would say that the sound quality is terrible and the writing is gimmicky. They would be right - you simply couldn't do the kind of lush ambiences and film score-esque textures that you can with modern tools, so they had to write given the limitations. Whether that was GOOD or BAD is subjective, but the fact that the limitations forced a particular style is not. Likewise, it wasn't a choice for pen and paper RPGs to be turn-based with heavy numerical emphasis, nor was it a choice for early computer/console RPGs.

@Zircon: I've just come from a 500+ page war on SWF about Metaknight in which a physics major self-parsed, analyzed, and graphed out 13 months worth of tournament data to prove a point; "self-evidence" won't cut if for me, personally. If you say you know how 80's game designers were thinking, I'm going to want to know how, and just saying "oh, there were trends somewhere" doesn't really help me understand your point of view.

I think you might benefit from reading what I actually wrote. This is something where citations aren't really necessary. The original post revolves around an article saying that new games are ditching old mechanics, and some people are complaining about this because they like the old mechanics. I'm making the point that a lot of these old mechanics only existed because they were the only option(s) available for any number of reasons, and so it makes little sense to say we shouldn't try new things when we have the ability to. My secondary point is that it's odd that people have become actually attached to old mechanics; it's akin to being attached to a password system over a battery save.

[Native Jovian]

Summary of both the original article and the thread it spawned: YOUR OPINION IS DIFFERENT THAN MINE THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG QED!

Seriously, just because you hate random battles and like FFXII's system better doesn't mean that everyone who likes random battles and so hated FFXII's system are wrong. It just means that they have a different opinion than you. Just because you like shooting stuff more than mucking about with stats and level-ups doesn't mean that ME2's system is forever and always better than ME1's system. I like mucking about with stats. I love games like FFT and MS Saga that let me customize every little bit of every unit in my party -- games where I spend more time preparing for combat than actually fighting.

But luckily, I had whatshisface from MaximumPC to tell me I'm wrong.

Seriously, why is it so hard for some people to simply accept that different people have different tastes, which lead them to have different opinions about the same thing? You're allowed to disagree with someone without either of you being right or wrong! Seriously.

[zircon]

Nowhere in the article did he - or anyone else in this thread - say it was wrong to like mechanics for older games. The original author's point in fact is best summed up by his own closing paragraph:

With the rapidly climbing price of game development, it’s already difficult enough for developers to breathe life into new ideas. So when a developer makes its very own Frankenstein’s monster of game genres, let’s at least wait until we’ve actually played the result for ourselves before raising our pitchforks and torches.

Game development is expensive and risky. It is much safer to stick with tried and true conventions rather than innovate. The author points out that many extremely vocal gamers are not helping things by rabidly (and sometimes baselessly) attacking developers who (try to) change things up. That won't encourage innovation and the progression of the medium, or games in general.

[prophetik music]

Game development is expensive and risky. It is much safer to stick with tried and true conventions rather than innovate. The author points out that many extremely vocal gamers are not helping things by rabidly (and sometimes baselessly) attacking developers who (try to) change things up. That won't encourage innovation and the progression of the medium, or games in general.

thanks for bringing that back up. it's easy to get into the me vs. you debate with this stuff, and the key is that that's not the point - the point is to NOT trash new stuff simply because it's new, welcome it and enjoy the flexibility that it brings in.

[Gario]

thanks for bringing that back up. it's easy to get into the me vs. you debate with this stuff, and the key is that that's not the point - the point is to NOT trash new stuff simply because it's new, welcome it and enjoy the flexibility that it brings in.

Pretty much... Unfortunately, due to the design of the company there's really never going to be satisfying everyone, so people should just accept that there will be many games out there that they don't like, for one reason or another, and that others will enjoy those games for those very reasons. People should actually welcome novel changes, if they're connoisseurs of an older generation because, let's face it, there are certainly enough games made using the older mechanics, so they'll always at least have something to fall back on, if they don't like the novelty some games bring with them.

Also, we are talking about video games, right? I swear, there are some zealots out there that should lighten up on their views a little bit .

[Native Jovian]

Nowhere in the article did he - or anyone else in this thread - say it was wrong to like mechanics for older games.

I disagree.

“Mass Effect 2’s not even an RPG anymore,” many of them hoot and holler. “It’s just a shooter with RPG elements!” Now, ignoring the fact that large chunks of Mass Effect 2 see Shepard holstering his sticks and stones in favor of words so that the player can -- you know -- play a role, streamlining the game’s combat doesn’t diminish its effect. In fact, I’d even argue that it allows for greater strategic depth.

Ignoring the pedantic definition of "RPG" (you're playing a role in a video game, it's an RPG, durrrrr), he's basically saying that people are complaining about ME2 for being different even though it's better. Which completely ignores the fact that the people complaining about it don't think it's better.

Again, Final Fantasy XII aimed to streamline and refine its combat system, but close-minded gamers were too stuck on their preconceived notions of what an RPG – and, on some level, videogames – should be, so they turned up their noses, scoffed, and went back to enduring random battle after random battle because that’s the way it’s always been.

Same here; people didn't like FFXII's combat (preferring old school RPG battles) are "close-minded" and "stuck on their preconceived notions" rather than "having a different opinion". The underlying assumption is that FFXII's combat is better, and the people who refuse to admit that are just having negative kneejerk reactions to innovation. It's basically begging the question. "FFXII is better than previous FFs, so why do a lot of people dislike it?" "Maybe they don't think it's better." "Well, they're wrong, it is, so they must just hate anything new."

As far as from within the thread itself...

Somehow people thought that FFXII letting you automate mundane tasks like mashing the attack command was somehow worse than sitting there mashing the attack button everytime you hit a random battle.

The opposing opinion, that it's better to actually be making decisions during a battle rather than sitting back and literally watching the game play itself, is equally valid.

The combat was tedious and boring. The rigid class structure meant I couldn't try out different ways of playing with starting a new game entirely. The stat/inventory management was a giant pain but ultimately didn't even change the way combat played out, which for me was just basic shoot - hide - shoot - hide or occasionally "rush with shotgun." No REAL depth at all. I couldn't get through more than 4 or 5 hours of it.

And yet, some people play through the whole game multiple times for different character builds and such. Are they WRONG in doing that? Are they deluding themselves by playing and enjoying a BAD game?

The whole exchange between Jack and Vagrance is pretty much a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You can go for point-by-point rebuttals of your respective thoughts on a given game, but it's pointless, because it's a matter of opinion. Arguing about opinions is pointless because it just comes down to personal taste.

[zircon]

NJ, you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. The point of the article, which you continue to ignore, was not to say "old is always bad, new is always good" but to emphasize that video game development is already risky and extremely expensive, and by being extremely vocal in complaining about new mechanics, gamers are only discouraging future innovation.

The OP article, Vivi and myself have put forth our own opinions on why we think various new mechanics are indeed an improvement, but again, nobody has called anyone else objectively "wrong" for liking old mechanics. That has nothing to do with the article and to twist it into a debate like that is silly (and yes, I do think the side-debate about ME1 vs. ME2 is off-topic.)

We're all gamers and we all want to see games continue to get better. Retro/classic games will always be made, as evidenced by things like HD Remix, Sonic 4, MM9 + 10, FF4: The After Years and countless others. Loudly rejecting attempts at innovation will discourage innovation, and it's worse when some of the criticism is due to pure conservatism.

[prophetik music]

people should just accept that there will be many games out there that they don't like, for one reason or another, and that others will enjoy those games for those very reasons.

THANK YOU.

there's a strong chance i will not like god of war III when i go to play it. this is related to many issues, but it's the same reason i didn't like bayonetta, the DMC series, dante's inferno, etc - i don't like over-the-top action games. just my preference. GOW3 is shaping up to be one of the best games this console generation, a mountaintop experience for game players and creators alike. but i probably won't like it. does this mean it's bad? of course not. does this mean i will not buy it? probably. you never know - i don't like MW2, but i bought it because it represents one of the biggest failures of this console generation - IW's inability to control cheating and exploitation within a console-based game, as well as the whole pc vs. console debate.

[Meteo Xavier]

I don't see why many of these points need to be driven down through the ground and then through Chinatown. A lot of what I'm reading seems self-explanatory and fairly obvious.

[prophetik music]

it's not, though, for many gamers out there.

he was a bit argumentative, granted, but it's still a point that needs making, and no one's doing it for fear of alienating their player bases.

[A-RoN]

I think it's a good idea for game designers to try something different when it comes to game sequels, but not stray too far out of the box right after one game. I'm not saying that's what these game creators are doing these days, but games should to be more subtle when shaping the mold of the gameplay into something different as series go along. Crisis Core was a good shift in terms of its action battle system as it still kept the main fundamental elements of the series battle system and put a great twist in materia customization. Dirge of Cerberus was the complete opposite from what others tell me.

That's my opinion, Don't like it, enjoy whatever games you play and I'll enjoy mine.

[Native Jovian]

NJ, you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

You always say then when I end up on the opposite side of an issue as you.

The point of the article, which you continue to ignore, was not to say "old is always bad, new is always good" but to emphasize that video game development is already risky and extremely expensive, and by being extremely vocal in complaining about new mechanics, gamers are only discouraging future innovation.

Then he's missing the point entirely, because most of the examples he gives (ME2, Bioshock 2, FFXII) were commercial successes. He's saying that the gaming industry is stagnating, and places the blame on people who complain about the sort of innovations seen in ME2 and FFXII and Heavy Rain ("We complain that videogames have stagnated – that they’re not innovative enough anymore. But when someone puts a new spin on an old idea, we roll our eyes and suddenly become cynical old museum curators, shooing away every piece that can’t fit in a frame and hang on a wall."), when those games have done very well and have made money. Hell, the most popular console by far is the Wii, which is by far the most "different" of the modern consoles. If he's trying to say that people are wrong for disliking ME2/FF12/whatever, then he's an idiot for trying to tell people what their opinions should be. If he's trying to say that gamers dislike innovation and that dislike is harming the industry, then he's objectively wrong because that's verifiably not the case.

[zircon]

Well, for one thing, FF12 was one of the most expensive games of all time to produce (meaning even though sales were good, expenses may have evened it out - we don't know) and it did get a LOT of negative feedback for the changed combat system. Why do you think Square went back to a more traditional system for FF13? Why do you think nearly all RPGs coming out of Japan still use those traditional mechanics? If the market (and critics) were rewarding innovation, we'd see more things changed up more often. This is "objectively verifiable" too. Likewise, how do you know that Heavy Rain will sell enough to make up for its expenses? Or ME2? How do you know what the producers of these games will do for followups?

It's easy to find countless articles on and interviews with larger game developers who will tell you that playing it safe is rewarded far more than innovation in the game industry. Yes, once in awhile a small indie game company can do something unusual like Braid and turn a nice profit, but bigger firms like EA, Microsoft Game Studios, etc.? No. When the costs of making a blockbuster game can get to upwards of $50 million (and they do), the pressure is on to do something tried and true, not to be daring. Square tried it with FF12 and the fan backlash was significant. A better example might be FF13 itself though - while it returned to a more traditional battle system, it changed up exploration and game progression, and as a result its sales AND fan reception are both suffering. Seems like a pretty consistent message from many fans; try to change and we'll reject it.

[SotSS]

A better example might be FF13 itself though - while it returned to a more traditional battle system, it changed up exploration and game progression, and as a result its sales AND fan reception are both suffering.

Seems like a pretty consistent message from many fans; try to change and we'll reject it.

With a lot of games that try to be "innovative" and fail, the complaints I've seen aren't merely "they changed things; boooooo." Usually there are specific criticism regarding the nature of the changes and why they're aren't good. A few examples from gamefaqs regarding the Gambit system in FF13, for example:

First of all, they did away with the random encounters and separate battle scenes a la Final Fantasy XI. While this works in a situation where you only control one character, trying to control three fundamentally breaks the battle system in XII. There is simply too much control required in the game to make the battle system work. In boss battles where there is a lot of damage being dealt and status effects thrown around often, you need to be able to control all three characters. There are two ways of doing this. A) Put the game on wait mode so it pauses whenever you're in a menu and manually control each character; this method is agonizingly slow. Use the gambit system, which is broken in and of itself.

The gambit system is the answer to having to manually control each character in a real-time situation. It allows you to set conditions and reactions for each character. For instance, you can set a certain character to cast Cure if any party member's health falls below a certain percentage. While a decent theory on paper, it breaks down in practice. First of all, you have a maximum of about ten or so gambit slots, most of which you have to purchase off the license board (a whole other story) before they are available. This becomes a problem when you try and have one character do all your healing. You simply don't have enough gambit slots to set up all the healing and status-curing gambits you need, thus forcing you to manually control characters anyway.

At first, I had lots of fun. I like the old turn-based, but I was totally open to a new way. Final Fantasy is all about experimenting with new battle systems and ways to level up, and if you have been playing for any number of years you get used to the changes. The real-time in 12 was much more enjoyable than, say, in the chaotic X-2, where so much is happening you can barely think straight. But soon, cracks start to show in the system, and first being Gambits. As others have mentioned here, Gambits set up an AI that's too simplistic. For instance, I can set it up that Penelo always "Steal" as her first move. But I can't stop her from not stealing if the enemy has been shown to possess nothing, nor can I have her only Steal once. She will continue to Steal until I tell her not to.

And examples like this are all over. They aren't complaining simply because it's different and being different is bad, but because they believe the system has some real flaws. You may or may not agree with those criticisms, of course, but the point is that there is much more than "the combat is different from FF7; waaah waah" or some such, and I've seen this with a lot of "innovative" games; the complaints are often not simply "it's different, therefore it isn't good" but more specific criticisms and comments regarding what doesn't work and, often, what works well/what would make the system better (which doesn't send the message of "difference = bad" but "this new system is broken/horribly flawed; fix some of these problems and we'll embrace these changes with open arms.")

[zircon]

Yet a lot of the critiques levied - not all, perhaps - are more rooted in nostalgia and conservatism. You can build an argument around almost any viewpoint, but that doesn't mean the basis for the argument isn't still a lust for "the old way", and that blind lust or loyalty was what the author of the article was warning against. It's a perfectly valid warning. Again, the climate of the industry right now discourages innovation unless you're a tiny developer, and even tiny developers can have a very hard time on that front (you still need to obtain funding.) If the situation were reversed, we might be having a different discussion.