Post by Shrikeswind on Jul 18, 2018 0:24:37 GMT -5
*Rocks in rocking chair.* Games were better back in my day! We didn't have all these fancy graphics and complicated stories. When we wanted to play games we would plug in a cartridge and play a game with a simple story and low-poly character models, or better yet, sprites, and we liked it! *Shakes cane.*
Jokes aside though, something I've noticed about a lot of games lately has been that there's been a trend towards complexity in a lot of ways, and it's often at the expense of what made older games so iconic. So let's start with Legend of Zelda. While my favorite game in the series is Majora's Mask, from a game design perspective the franchise peaked with Twilight Princess. People are probably going to argue for Breath of the Wild being better, but I disagree on the grounds that Twilight Princess fixed a lot of the major issues with Ocarina of Time which the franchise as a whole has since gone back on.
For example, exploration in Ocarina of Time is often frustrating because of how many times some secret is out in the middle of nowhere. Twilight Princess has many landmarks which makes finding secrets much more enjoyable despite its larger map. Breath of the Wild's map is too massive to do this - how do you encourage exploring suspicious locations on a map that big without a big glowing obelisk to declare to the world "COME HERE IT'S A SECRET TO EVERYBODY"? Because that defeats the purpose of...well, a secret. (Having not played BotW yet, I can't say if it accomplishes this well, but judging from the suggested questions on Google or suggested videos on YouTube on the subject, it sounds like the answer is "With little-to-no marking like in OoT but on a much larger map.")
Another example is the helper fairy - OoT gives you two, Navi and past Saria. Navi is obnoxious because she is so demanding of your attention and if you choose to ignore her you're locked out of an important control, while Saria is only able to help you in the past, and even then only after you play a song. Midna simplifies all of it - she offers both grand-scope direction (like Saria) and small-scale advice (like Navi), all at the push of a dedicated button and without ever interrupting you. She even replaces the Scarecrow's Song! The only thing she doesn't do is tell you about enemies. Then Fi falls back to Navi's worst habit (interrupting you all the time for things you don't care about), while adding a few more for good measure, specifically "Nagging at you to heal while the game's already beeping obnoxiously at you" and "Making every interruption into rambling technical babble."
So an ideal Zelda game would play very much like Twilight Princess. I'm pretty sure I've said this recently, but what does this have to do with classic games being better? Well, simple really. Twilight Princess is a game which takes the lessons of classic Zelda titles to heart. It doesn't suffer for being like Ocarina of Time, in fact, the similarities are some of its strongest points, and its successors tend to fall flat by ignoring what was awesome about the franchise as a whole and Ocarina in particular. But that's another point entirely. I'm focused here especially on what Twilight does right, and that is this: Twilight Princess uses the technology of the time to expand Hyrule's size, while simultaneously making Hyrule more explorable through landmarks and dungeons which often expand Hyrule's story, mythos, and mystique in a way that still feels like a classic Legend of Zelda title, and these strengths set it apart from its 3D successors, which either limit exploration as in Skyward Sword or expand Hyrule so much that there's actually too much to explore as in Breath of the Wild.
So that's how technology could be used to improve on Zelda, and how it hasn't. How about something else?
Now, it might sound a bit strange to hear me say that Super Smash Bros. is a franchise that has gotten too complicated over the years since the biggest changes to Smash Bros. that would lead to that conclusion is the roster. We have almost 70 characters in the franchise now and it's still growing, and while I am on record as saying, quote, "I'm a greedy little piggy and I want MOAR" characters, 70 characters is a long way off from the 12 the series started with. I would very much not like for Super Smash Bros. to go back that far. That said, I would (and thus will) happily use Smash 64 as an example of how to do something new like a classic game, and how to avoid falling into the same traps as this hypothetical franchise develops in the future.
Something developers need to do is apply some hard limits. For a new series, especially a new multiplayer series, it can be pretty daunting to think of everything you could possibly add, and in any case it'll get expensive fast simply because of how much you'd be making - and if what you're making ends up a flop, well, guess what, you just wasted a whole lot of money on a whole lot of nothing. Smash 64 has 12 characters, 4 of which are unlockable. If I were to take a number of characters to start a new multiplayer series on, I wouldn't stray too far from that. For a cross-over, go with the most iconic members of each universe represented. For a single-series spinoff, go with the most iconic characters of the series. For a new franchise, make these characters charismatic in terms of design, personality, and backstory - these are going to be your main characters, after all.
Later, as the series expands, try to keep things simple as well. Gameplay may adapt but try not to make too many gimmicks - a character who plays differently from other characters or who relies on some mechanic that other characters don't will seem fun at first, but if you do it too much it bogs down the game. I've discussed Inkling's ink mechanic in another thread and this is what I mean when I say "a character who relies on some mechanic that others don't." And it'd be a crucial mistake if Ryu fought exclusively with Street Fighter controls even in Smash Bros., so crucial as to be detrimental - luckily, that's not how he operates, but it's the example I'm using because...well, his gimmick is that you still at least can.
So, now, I guess all that's left is design.
Much like with planning small rosters, designing characters or music needs to have hard limits applied. Ocarina of Time had a hard limit on the songs you could play (the main motif must be based on a 5-8 note melody featuring only as much as 5 tones,) resulting in some of the most memorable melodies not only in the series but in gaming as a whole, and Donkey Kong had hard technological limits that forced graphical decisions which resulted in the most iconic video game character ever. These are not things you see a lot of anymore in a great many media. Recently, the trend has been to go in one of two directions - incredibly generic designs (ooh wow, you dressed this kid in a school uniform. Like I haven't seen that in every bland anime to come out in the past decade) or incredibly complicated designs (I'm looking at you, Pokemon.) So let's look at some successful, iconic designs and see what we can take away from them.
So my examples here are going to be Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Goku, Mario, Link, Sonic, and Mickey Mouse. First things first, let's break these characters down into their absolute most basic colors: Red, yellow, blue, green, black, white, brown, peach. 8 base colors. Now, you could do more, but this gives us a good base to work with. Next, each character really runs on three colors - and what I mean here is, if you were to say these characters each get three colors, you'd be able to reduce them down with little to no effort. Superman is blue, red, and peach. Batman is black, blue, and yellow. Spiderman is red, white, and blue. Goku is red, black, and peach. Mario is red, blue, and peach. Link is green, brown, and peach. Sonic is blue, red, and white. Mickey is black, red, and peach. Once you start adding colors, there might be changes, but they'll be miniscule and you'll still be able to recognize them. This is why Mario is still recognizably Mario with his brown shoes and hair and his white gloves despite his sprite from Donkey Kong only having three colors, with those shoes and hair being blue. What's jarring for him is the color swap on his overalls and shirt, but he's still in the same colors. The Hero of Time, likewise, looks pretty distinct from the Links that came before him, but you can still see that color scheme carry through and where it doesn't, you can understand why.
Names are another example of where limits beget creativity, Pokemon. The 10 character limit helped create some fantastic names for Pokemon - Victreebel, anyone? And one need look no further than Crabominable to see how far Pokemon names have fallen since the limit was lifted. Watch: Crabomasyn. 10 letters. It's a crab, it's an abominable snowman, and its designer shall burn in Hell for letting it exist. I just gave that heap a name which, were it real, would be the only good thing about it.
tl;dr, Games were better back in my day, because developers had design limits to work with. Technological advancements are wonderful and can (and have!) been used to improve on success, but lately it's felt like technological progress has been coming at the cost of design and creativity.
I could sit here and rock all day, especially if you lot leave me alone. *Shakes cane.*
Jokes aside though, something I've noticed about a lot of games lately has been that there's been a trend towards complexity in a lot of ways, and it's often at the expense of what made older games so iconic. So let's start with Legend of Zelda. While my favorite game in the series is Majora's Mask, from a game design perspective the franchise peaked with Twilight Princess. People are probably going to argue for Breath of the Wild being better, but I disagree on the grounds that Twilight Princess fixed a lot of the major issues with Ocarina of Time which the franchise as a whole has since gone back on.
For example, exploration in Ocarina of Time is often frustrating because of how many times some secret is out in the middle of nowhere. Twilight Princess has many landmarks which makes finding secrets much more enjoyable despite its larger map. Breath of the Wild's map is too massive to do this - how do you encourage exploring suspicious locations on a map that big without a big glowing obelisk to declare to the world "COME HERE IT'S A SECRET TO EVERYBODY"? Because that defeats the purpose of...well, a secret. (Having not played BotW yet, I can't say if it accomplishes this well, but judging from the suggested questions on Google or suggested videos on YouTube on the subject, it sounds like the answer is "With little-to-no marking like in OoT but on a much larger map.")
Another example is the helper fairy - OoT gives you two, Navi and past Saria. Navi is obnoxious because she is so demanding of your attention and if you choose to ignore her you're locked out of an important control, while Saria is only able to help you in the past, and even then only after you play a song. Midna simplifies all of it - she offers both grand-scope direction (like Saria) and small-scale advice (like Navi), all at the push of a dedicated button and without ever interrupting you. She even replaces the Scarecrow's Song! The only thing she doesn't do is tell you about enemies. Then Fi falls back to Navi's worst habit (interrupting you all the time for things you don't care about), while adding a few more for good measure, specifically "Nagging at you to heal while the game's already beeping obnoxiously at you" and "Making every interruption into rambling technical babble."
So an ideal Zelda game would play very much like Twilight Princess. I'm pretty sure I've said this recently, but what does this have to do with classic games being better? Well, simple really. Twilight Princess is a game which takes the lessons of classic Zelda titles to heart. It doesn't suffer for being like Ocarina of Time, in fact, the similarities are some of its strongest points, and its successors tend to fall flat by ignoring what was awesome about the franchise as a whole and Ocarina in particular. But that's another point entirely. I'm focused here especially on what Twilight does right, and that is this: Twilight Princess uses the technology of the time to expand Hyrule's size, while simultaneously making Hyrule more explorable through landmarks and dungeons which often expand Hyrule's story, mythos, and mystique in a way that still feels like a classic Legend of Zelda title, and these strengths set it apart from its 3D successors, which either limit exploration as in Skyward Sword or expand Hyrule so much that there's actually too much to explore as in Breath of the Wild.
So that's how technology could be used to improve on Zelda, and how it hasn't. How about something else?
Now, it might sound a bit strange to hear me say that Super Smash Bros. is a franchise that has gotten too complicated over the years since the biggest changes to Smash Bros. that would lead to that conclusion is the roster. We have almost 70 characters in the franchise now and it's still growing, and while I am on record as saying, quote, "I'm a greedy little piggy and I want MOAR" characters, 70 characters is a long way off from the 12 the series started with. I would very much not like for Super Smash Bros. to go back that far. That said, I would (and thus will) happily use Smash 64 as an example of how to do something new like a classic game, and how to avoid falling into the same traps as this hypothetical franchise develops in the future.
Something developers need to do is apply some hard limits. For a new series, especially a new multiplayer series, it can be pretty daunting to think of everything you could possibly add, and in any case it'll get expensive fast simply because of how much you'd be making - and if what you're making ends up a flop, well, guess what, you just wasted a whole lot of money on a whole lot of nothing. Smash 64 has 12 characters, 4 of which are unlockable. If I were to take a number of characters to start a new multiplayer series on, I wouldn't stray too far from that. For a cross-over, go with the most iconic members of each universe represented. For a single-series spinoff, go with the most iconic characters of the series. For a new franchise, make these characters charismatic in terms of design, personality, and backstory - these are going to be your main characters, after all.
Later, as the series expands, try to keep things simple as well. Gameplay may adapt but try not to make too many gimmicks - a character who plays differently from other characters or who relies on some mechanic that other characters don't will seem fun at first, but if you do it too much it bogs down the game. I've discussed Inkling's ink mechanic in another thread and this is what I mean when I say "a character who relies on some mechanic that others don't." And it'd be a crucial mistake if Ryu fought exclusively with Street Fighter controls even in Smash Bros., so crucial as to be detrimental - luckily, that's not how he operates, but it's the example I'm using because...well, his gimmick is that you still at least can.
So, now, I guess all that's left is design.
Much like with planning small rosters, designing characters or music needs to have hard limits applied. Ocarina of Time had a hard limit on the songs you could play (the main motif must be based on a 5-8 note melody featuring only as much as 5 tones,) resulting in some of the most memorable melodies not only in the series but in gaming as a whole, and Donkey Kong had hard technological limits that forced graphical decisions which resulted in the most iconic video game character ever. These are not things you see a lot of anymore in a great many media. Recently, the trend has been to go in one of two directions - incredibly generic designs (ooh wow, you dressed this kid in a school uniform. Like I haven't seen that in every bland anime to come out in the past decade) or incredibly complicated designs (I'm looking at you, Pokemon.) So let's look at some successful, iconic designs and see what we can take away from them.
So my examples here are going to be Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Goku, Mario, Link, Sonic, and Mickey Mouse. First things first, let's break these characters down into their absolute most basic colors: Red, yellow, blue, green, black, white, brown, peach. 8 base colors. Now, you could do more, but this gives us a good base to work with. Next, each character really runs on three colors - and what I mean here is, if you were to say these characters each get three colors, you'd be able to reduce them down with little to no effort. Superman is blue, red, and peach. Batman is black, blue, and yellow. Spiderman is red, white, and blue. Goku is red, black, and peach. Mario is red, blue, and peach. Link is green, brown, and peach. Sonic is blue, red, and white. Mickey is black, red, and peach. Once you start adding colors, there might be changes, but they'll be miniscule and you'll still be able to recognize them. This is why Mario is still recognizably Mario with his brown shoes and hair and his white gloves despite his sprite from Donkey Kong only having three colors, with those shoes and hair being blue. What's jarring for him is the color swap on his overalls and shirt, but he's still in the same colors. The Hero of Time, likewise, looks pretty distinct from the Links that came before him, but you can still see that color scheme carry through and where it doesn't, you can understand why.
Names are another example of where limits beget creativity, Pokemon. The 10 character limit helped create some fantastic names for Pokemon - Victreebel, anyone? And one need look no further than Crabominable to see how far Pokemon names have fallen since the limit was lifted. Watch: Crabomasyn. 10 letters. It's a crab, it's an abominable snowman, and its designer shall burn in Hell for letting it exist. I just gave that heap a name which, were it real, would be the only good thing about it.
tl;dr, Games were better back in my day, because developers had design limits to work with. Technological advancements are wonderful and can (and have!) been used to improve on success, but lately it's felt like technological progress has been coming at the cost of design and creativity.
I could sit here and rock all day, especially if you lot leave me alone. *Shakes cane.*
