[Editor's Note: We're not just a (rad) news site -- we also publish opinions/editorials from our community & employees like this one, though be aware it may not jive with the opinions of Destructoid as a whole, or how our moms raised us. Want to post your own article in response? Publish it now on our community blogs.]
Evolution has always been a thriving factor in the videogame industry. Ideas and concepts are born from the minds of talented creators and made practical by entire teams of qualified artists and designers. However, there is a trend in our modern gaming universe that is eager to change and innovate upon different approaches of experiences. Be the virtual reality path adopted by Microsoft or the motion controls endorsed by Nintendo, videogame compagnies are trying harder and harder to make the games feel as they are real.
One common misconception, however, is that most of these ideas as revolutionary as they might be, suffer from the lack of ground and coherent use acquired along the years. Yet some videogames are able to achieve excellence and mass approval with rather primitive concepts and designs. How could these archaic games be successful in an era of forward thinking. It may appear that once you have found the winning formula, you can’t change what isn’t broken.
Let’s take for example the classical type of gameplay in videogames. Breakout is essentially Pong, put in a singleplayer perspective. One of the simplest ideas in videogame design, evolved into a great legacy still present to this day. Derivative of Pong, the game was able to cut in half, the primary principal of the 70’s classic.
However as simple as it may seems , a little over three decades later, Shatter was able to reinvent the genre with amazing graphical enhancements and gameplay innovations. The game transports the player throughout various angles of brick-breaking and adds clever boss battles using every bits of it’s core mechanic. Some might say that the suction physics in Shatter are groundbreaking however, many of the older Pong machines had a special button or reset key in order to deviate or curve the pattern of the angular trajectory. The current update that Shatter provides immitates basic concepts present at the genesis of the industry.
In order to continue our analysis, let’s take a trip to the glorious land of the rising sun to expose a revered little title. Xevious broke the standard immovable ship into a multi-directional control pattern as well as adding colorful backgrounds from below. Following the step of it’s forefather Space Invaders, the game brought the classical architype of the modern Shoot’em up.
A design still present in the most recent Japanese arcade titles such as Mushihime-sama Futari. Technically identical in their core designs these two titles are bounded together excluded from the deterioration of time. Xevious still plays as great as it was 27 years ago and so will it’s Cave’s counterpart. These two games represent the classic example of if isn’t broken , don’t fix it.
An aspect frequently overlooked in gaming is the integration of independent developers into the competitive market of the bigger publishing endeavors. As we've seen earlier on, a lot of modern games are directly inspired by the vintage years of the videogame industry. I MAED A GAM3 W1TH ZOMBIES 1N IT!!!1 uses this technique in a simple and effective way to relate to a broader audience and therefore acquires more recognition with a cheap price (Only 1 dollah) and an easily understandable control scheme.
This contributes a lot to indie developers in a perspective of getting their work known outside of the restrictive independent gaming scene and by using older designs into their primary works, such as Gaijin Games with the Bit.Trip. series and Capybara Games with their puzzle series they are able to get relevant exposure for acceptable costs.
As we have seen this year, the role playing game genre has evolved greatly in terms of narrative and complexity. However, from it’s early beginning in the first half of the 1980’s the PC game Rogue was able to contribute to one of the finest games of the last decade. Demon’s Souls picks up every bit of design present in Rogue and modifies the experience into a marvelous three dimensional dungeon crawler.
Eventhought the games clearly displays fantastic avatars, if you replace Demon’s Souls dragons and dark universe into a sequence of symbols much like in Rogue. Both games will essentially be the same yet, nearly three decades seperate them.
In conclusion, as we discovered many examples of this winning formula throughout our analysis, we can come to a logical understanding about the future of videogames. Althought the creativity is stagnant, the presentation however will always evolve and update these effective concepts by disregarding their seniority. What we are looking into in the short-term evolution of videogames is a decisive concept that is nearly three decades old and is still effective to this day. The winning formula is to many games, one of the safest and innovative way to stand the test of time and make players enjoy classical gaming architectures in our modern gaming world.
Would Castlevania or Contra really be that good if it was in 3D? Aswell as Bionic Commando. Sometimes it's better to keep the fundations of gaming into certain genres and keep on developping new ideas around these fundamental concepts.
If we could introduce new concepts using older formulas maybe it could invigorate the interest in original content.
Fighter vs fighter (typically in a Street-like setting). Dude running from left to right, killing enemies with his gun (or Mega Buster, as it may be). It's the little tweaks to these "formulas" that keep me coming back.
MK, those titles you mentioned come from a long line of games preceding them that built incrementally on a core idea, but added a fun, engaging twist. I'd argue that some of the most innovative games take familiar settings and make them new and interesting once again.
But on the topic of Shatter, I have to say that trying to beat the Boss Rush mode in under 10 minutes makes me want to "shatter" someone's knee caps. Don't know why I can't beat it....besides that I suck T_T
It's my only trophy left for a "100%".
I fucking love Shatter nevertheless :P!
And this will be front-paged. Mark my words.
Also, I Made A Gaem is easily the best $1 I've ever spent on gaming. Hilarious and classicly fun.
"classical gaming architectures in our modern gaming world" - nice turn of phrase and I do think that innovation can absolutely be layered on a solid and proven foundation.
Also, this article now makes me think of DarkSiders. Well done!
Each of these games (with the except of Robotron and Ga3m, which is basically the same game...with zombies) is a great example of evolutionary game design. They take the original "idea", and then build on it with different pieces, original or not (in these cases mostly original) which make them entirely different beasts in terms of gameplay. They are not so much a representation of a formula unless you break it down to its most basic level, that every game where there is a ball being hit by a line is a formula, or a game where you shoot someone is a formula. People like to do these things, but I'd argue that all of your examples are successful (where thousands of other clones have failed; remember Robotron 64? No? That's because no one bought it) not because of the formula they embody but because of the new edges they bring to that formula.
Thumbs up for promotion, though, and it's a very well written article I disagree with completely. :P
Hell, you can even go as far as to say The Lurking Horror was the precursor to survival horror games of the 90's. Well, I like to think so anyway...so I can look cool and smart and stuff, innit.
I think this article was a great read (and I love the comparisons). The above quote is my only quibble - I get what you mean, I just hate to see it phrased that way. It's like saying, "There's no such thing as creativity in painting because people have painted things before," or "there's no such thing as an original story because all the stories have been told."
If you limit the meaning of "creative" to "a hypothetical concept for which no one can identify any historical influences or precursors," it's just not a very useful thing to say. Surely we want to allow that people can be "creative" by just engaging in the act of creating things (barring the act of literal duplication or plagiarism wherein creation does not take place)? It's a semantic point but I see people saying things like this a lot and it bugs me.
Okay, done ranting like a crazy guy on the subway. :) Seriously you could get a book out of the "winning formula" concept. It might even be a better way to distinguish "families" of games than the genres (Action/Adventure/RPG/whathaveyou) that are becoming less and less effective as labels.
The winning formula doesn't applies to all videogames that's an undeniable truth. But I do think that some categories (families) , especially old-fashioned ones adopt this "formula" in order to keep refreshing their main ideas.
As for creativity it's debatable , some games are very conservative in the way they materialize yet some are very creative and genre-bending.
This formula is awesome for games like this and the upcoming 3D Dot Game Heroes, but developers are applying this formula to modern sequels and that leads to degradation. Look at Gears of war and GOW 2. COD4 and MW2. Halo and Halo ODST.
So it's awesome, when the game's core is old, but the game itself feels fresh and awesome. That's only because these old ideas are implemented by new people.
But when a team of developers implies this formula to their own games, adding only a few new things to their game, they're making no make no headway at all. And that's fucking sad.
Deep article and nice breakdown! Maybe too deep. True, the "winning formula" is most evident in many, if not every game produced and played today. Although an obvious formula, many may not even recognize it.
There will always be an evolution of games being made, not a revolution. Play Donkey Kong and see how it evolved into Mario Bros. which in turn evolved into Super Mario Bros. and so on and so forth. Each a classic platform game reinvented with better graphics and deeper gameplay mechanics. It's the circle life, for video games.
What exactly is original? Not much. I mean, everything evolves from something into something else, different yet much the same. Video games, as well.
Some things evolve for the better, some for the worse. The evolution of some birds. Amazing. The Harpy Eagle. The evolution of some Mario Bros. games. Not so amazing. Mario Clash(Virtual Boy).
"Shatter was able to reinvent the genre with amazing graphical enhancements and gameplay innovations."
The formula itself may work fine, but most people can spot a simple rehash when they see it. The common path to success is to find ways to improve upon what, while not broken, isn't perfect. Granted, attempts to do so are met with mixed success, but the point stands. Advancement, not recycling, brings success.
That's probably one of the biggest reasons Konami's ReBirth series is getting some love. They take the original formula, and add enough tweak to make it an appealing package.
Artemus said most of the same things as I'm thinking, but I figured I'd toss this in anyway. Also, I'd like to point out that we also see different formulas rise and fall. Platformers, RPGs, and FPS have all had at least one period of being the cool kid on the block. Shmups and fighters, too. Perhaps we shouldn't look at IF we will be following formula, but WHICH formula the future will follow.