Safe Sequels: Are They Really as Bad as Everyone Says?

            Recently, I purchased the game Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time.  There were a number of things about this game I found strange.  It was a cross buy with the Playstation Vita, it was $40 instead of the usual $60, and it had no instruction manual, preferring to have its controls printed on the reverse of the cover.  While all these things offer interesting discussion points, I have a different topic I want to cover.  You see, when I played Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time, I thought to myself, "Huh...this is a lot like Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves."  And you know what?  That's okay.  That's not a bad thing.  I know tons of people who cry foul about how every New Super Mario Brothers game just rehashes Super Mario Brothers 3, but...it's still fun, yeah?  Safe sequels aren't always a problem.  Sometimes, they can even be a blessing.

Look familiar?  That's not always a bad thing.

           As I so often do, let me defend myself from any accusations.  Yes, it is important for games to keep evolving.  No, game designers should not get lazy, nor should they be willing to settle for what's profitable rather than trying something new.  Yes, I love games that try new things, like Flower, Journey, or the Trauma Center series.  But you know what?  I also loved Mario Galaxy 2.  I enjoyed Bioshock 2.  Dragon quests 4-9 are among my favorite RPGs of the last twenty years.  And yes, they are all games which have been done before.  Here's the thing.  The games industry constantly tries to innovate.  However, eventually, you're going to hit a plateau where innovation is no longer possible through game design and instead relies on technology.  We're reaching that point now, with accessories like the Kinect, WiiU controller, or Sixaxis controller offering some of the only new types of game experiences.  Sure, games can play differently, look differently, or tell different stories, but looking at them, at least one person can say it's "Like _____, but..."

These graphics are the norm for Dragon Quest 4-6.  Yet the story and tweaks to the norm make each game just as engaging as the last.  The best definition of a safe sequel.

            My point is, you don't need to reinvent the wheel with new technology or try a UI no one has ever tried before or do something stupid or annoying simply because it's "new."  Sometimes, what we want is a sequel where we know what we're getting.  We want a new story to be told and new music, certainly, but the gameplay can largely remain the same.  Look back at Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time.  Is it better than Sly 3?  probably not.  Is it derivative?  A little bit.  Does it still give you that Sly Cooper experience with the wacky characters, interesting music cues, off beat mini games mixed with stealth gameplay, and comic-book like story?  Absolutely.  It gives the Sly Cooper experience.  And that experience is fun.

Still plays almost exactly like Sly Cooper 3, but now they're time traveling.  Yes, please!

            Fun is the whole point of playing games, most of the time.  Whether you are suffering against insurmountable odds in Dark Souls or blowing people up in Call of Duty, you play because you enjoy it.  Some games, like Spec Ops: The Line, can be engaging without being fun, but most gamers play to relax and enjoy themselves.  So, if a game is fun...who cares if it plays like an older title?  I think we could have done with a few more "Safe sequels."  Look at Devil May Cry 4.  It left gamers with several unanswered questions about the Devil May Cry universe that may never be answered thanks to the DMC reboot.  However, if Capcom had used the same game engine with a new story?  We'd have eaten it up.  It'd be the same fun, challenging, over the top kind of game, even if nothing new was added beyond the story.  And it'd probably take less time to make, as well.

Look, it's a decent game, but what about all our questions?!  Who was Nero?  What happened to Dante after he went to hell in DMC2?  Is Virgil still alive somewhere?

            Safe sequels do have a place in the games industry, no matter what people might tell you.  For everyone who groans about the latest New Super Mario Bros. game or whines about how Kirby's Return to Dreamland is just a copy of Kirby's Adventure on the NES with prettier graphics, there are dozens of people who just sit down, play the game for fun, and really enjoy it for what it is.  A pleasant way to pass time.  Challenging, visually stimulating, familiar...it doesn't need to reinvent Kirby as a psychotic monster or give Mario a long, in-depth story.  They're enjoyable because we're familiar with them.  And I think that too often people forget this.  New does not always mean better.  A recent new release, Ni No Kuni, used a real time battle system that was somewhat flawed in my opinion.  Many of these flaws could have been avoided if it had used a traditional turn based system.  However, the fear of being labeled "just another JRPG" or derivative made the developer, Level-5, feel like it HAD to innovate.  Like it HAD to try something new.  Ni No Kuni would have been a success regardless of combat, because of the beautiful graphics, whimsical story, amazing music, and the adventure it took players on.  To me, it just feels sad that I had to suffer some annoyances because it had to be "New."  You don't need to reinvent the wheel.  Not always, anyway.

I love this game.  It's beautiful, whimsical, and a blast to experience...but real time combat was not what it needed.  You coulda gone old school on this and it would've been way more polished.

            That being said, let me offer a warning.  I do believe that safe sequels have a place in the games industry.  That they're not really a problem if they're fun.  However, for both players and game companies, if you dilute the brand, then you'll only hurt yourselves.  I have no problem with safe sequels.  But boring sequels?  Those, I can't stand.  And it's important that people know the difference.  Yes, New Super Mario Brothers 2 and New Super Mario Brothers WiiU are enjoyable but they came out with such rapid succession and didn't really do anything with the story, graphics, or tweaked gameplay, that make buying one version more attractive than buying another.  It's like a 2010 vs a 2011 version of a sports game.  You're paying for a slightly better coat of paint and maybe an updated roster.  The reason I saw Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time is an okay kind of sequel is because it'd been almost a decade since Sly 3.  It was time for Sly Cooper to make a come back.  Do you need to wait that long for every safe sequel?  No, of course not, you want your players to remember the series and for it to still be relevant.  However, if you churn out sequel after sequel, year after year...then players get bored.  They get tired of paying $60 once a year for an update.  The Call of Duty Modern Warfare series, which has a new iteration on an almost yearly basis, is a good example of this.  It's still fun to some people, certainly...but will it still be fun ten years and ten to twelve CoD games down the line?  Companies are diluting the brand with constant releases and all it will do is hurt the games.

I picked a screen from a CoD game at random.  Can anyone besides the super hardcore fans even tell me which game this is from?  Yeah...that's how many CoD games get released on an annual basis.

             I do think that story based games, especially RPGs could get away with this a bit more often.  Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask was built to be a safe sequel, using the same engine as Ocarina of Time, the same graphics, the same character models, etc. and made in roughly a year.  However, it gave us a new story, new places to explore, new people to meet...it gave us new horizons.  Games which rely heavily on gameplay, like modern warfare shooters, Mario games, racing games, sports games, etc. don't always have something new to offer players.  Maybe a new weapon or new set pieces, but...it's the same basic experience.  With no new experience, the game becomes bland.  A safe sequel needs to be what we are familiar with, but also it needs to have something different which will engage the players.  A new story, tweaks to combat, worlds that have never been explored before in that universe, etc.  A good example of this done well is the Dragon Quest series.  Dragon Quest has, as a series, basically recycled the same battle system for years, with a few slight variations.  But the story is always different.  In Dragon Quest 4, players take control of a number of different characters with different goals, jobs, and worries, whose stories all intersect.  In Dragon Quest 5, you play from childhood to marriage and team up with your children to fight evil.  In Dragon Quest 6, players are wrapped up in a battle for two worlds which are parallel, yet hidden from one another.  Even if the gameplay is the same, or slightly tweaked, they offer a different experience from previous titles, while still being familiar.

Despite being made one right after the other in rapid succession, each game was different enough in style, story, and environment, that gamers actually labeled them rivals.  Which Zelda game was better?  Safe sequel becomes timeless rival...I love it.

            Safe sequels are, in my opinion, like a fine wine or brandy.  You can drink them up as soon as the developer wants to release it, but the flavor will be lacking.  Give the property time to age properly and the safe sequel will be much more warmly received.  New Super Mario Brothers was basically a safe sequel to Super Mario Bros. 3 on the NES.  But people ate it up because it'd been over a decade since they'd had an experience like that.  Fast forward to the fourth New Super Mario Brothers game, recently released for the WiiU, and people are a bit more...indifferent, or disappointed.  Does that mean they don't have a place?  No, they absolutely do, but you need to think of properties as an investment.  Sometimes, you need to wait before trying to cash out with them.  If another ten years passed with no New Super Mario Brothers games, players would probably be more receptive to another entry in the series.

Maybe you should give this franchise a little time off, Nintendo.  If the images were shuffled around, do you think any of us could tell the difference?

            Humans are a bit confusing, at times.  When we hear a story, we want closure, because that way we can move on to the next great story, feeling satisfied with what we just experienced.  However, that doesn't mean we never want more stories or more experiences like what we just had.  We just don't want them back to back.  Gamers are sometimes like comic fans.  We enjoy continuity.  We enjoy seeing the next part of the story that takes place after what we just saw ended.  But we need time to digest the experience.  Time to try other things before the next chapter is released.  This is one of the reasons I enjoyed Final Fantasy 4: After Years, even though it was critically panned.  Because it'd been long enough that I wanted to hear more of the story and experience that classic Final Fantasy gameplay.

Save for a slightly "crisper" look, FF4: After Years plays just like it's predecessor.  And that's why I enjoyed it.  New story, new characters, same old Final Fantasy.

            The take away from this is twofold.  First, game companies, recognize if you're milking a franchise too much.  If you keep churning out sequels on a yearly basis and people keep groaning, maybe lay off them for a bit until we're ready for the next part of the story.  It'll help keep the brand strong and players interested, rather than indifferent.  Second, gamers who always whine about sequels that are "just copies of the original," or what have you, take a step back.  Is the game still fun?  Are there more sequels incoming on an annual basis or is this the only one we get for a while?  Do we get a new experience, even if gameplay is similar?  Some safe sequels are problematic, but don't bash on a game just because it's like the original.  If it's fun, lay off. 

Innovation for the sake of a fun, enjoyable experience is the cornerstone of Journey, which uses the oldest storytelling trope known to man.  Innovation works here.

  

Playstation Move, a controller that has widely been ignored because it tried to jump on the Wii bandwagon and incorporate motion controls.  Innovation fails here, because it was for the sake of profit, rather than for the sake of making the games more enjoyable.

          Innovation does not equate to quality.  Jim Sterling put it best when he said that innovation was the game industry's snake oil.  Innovation for the sake of making a game more fun is great.  Innovation for innovation's sake is just going to end up with a product that is lacking, either in polish or enjoyability.  At some point, you can't really innovate anymore.  So, stop saying that innovation equals quality and something familiar is holding the industry back.  Safe sequels aren't always bad.  Many times, they are an enjoyable romp through familiar territory with a new twist or experience and they help keep their brand and their developer afloat.

Now, where's Devil May Cry 5 or Dark Cloud 3?  I'm waiting...

What's in a name? Go for something original!

            One pervading practice in the game's industry that really ticks me off is naming schemes.  Names that have numbers which discount sequels, side stories or the like, names that are meant to be a reboot for a series, despite it having a dozen previous entries, names of games completely unrelated to a series...the list goes on.  My big question is, why?  What's in a name?  If the game is something original, go for something original.  If the game is part of a series, make sure it has its proper place either chronologically or spiritually.  Don't use a name just to sell game.  Just don't. 

Chronologically confused?  Blame terrible naming conventions!

            Because if you try to sell a game using a name and that game isn't worthy of the name, all the fans you'll win with the name will hate your game.

            There are dozens of good examples for this practice.  While DMC was meant to be a reboot of Devil May Cry, it probably would have faired better with Devil May Cry fans if it wasn't given that name.  While the tone of the game is darker than the original series and the character a bit more petulant and angsty, the gameplay is solid and enjoyable.  The level design and aesthetic are unique and the story, while a bit topical, has some interesting nuances.  However, many people who grew up with the silver haired devil killer, Dante, and his brother, Vergil, cried foul of the game for its drastic tonal and character shift.  If the game had been called something different like "Purgatory" or "Angels and Demons" then fans of Devil May Cry would probably have loved the game as a wholly separate entity from their beloved series. 

Top is Devil May Cry 4, bottom is DMC.  Notice the similarities and difference.

These games both look fun, both look like they play similarly...so did you really need to alienate Devil May Cry fans with the new look when they'd probably love the game if it was named something differently?

            Name value is not brand loyalty like it was before the internet.  Before the rise of the internet, people had to rely on names to sell games.  Final Fantasy sold because it was Final Fantasy.  Now, Final Fantasy doesn't sell, not because of drastic changes to the name, but because fans no longer have to rely on the name to see the gameplay.  They have the internet.  They can choose for themselves.  And with the rise of games which blatantly gouge the players for money, like Final Fantasy: All the Bravest or three Final Fantasy 13 games which don't feel like Final Fantasy games at all, they tend to be more angered by the use of the name than prone to buy into it.  When fans of a series see that series bastardized, they are less likely to invest in it because it is not what they want and it actively insults, in their minds, the accomplishments of previous entries.  Bringing it back to Devil May Cray, the game DMC was already receiving a ton of press for its visuals, combat, and because it was being created by Ninja Theory.  It didn't need the Devil May Cry name to sell units.  If anything, the name hurt sales.

This looks like a fun take on old school Final Fantasy.  But the name isn't enough...fans are smarter than that.  When they learned this game was full of price gouging pay to play mechanics, they realized this was anything BUT Final Fantasy.

            And despite how utterly simple this kind of logic is, many people fail to realize that original IP CAN survive and that it doesn't need to cling to other titles.  An example:  Bioshock could have called itself System Shock 3, since it was clearly a spiritual sequel, but it was different enough that they went with a different name for a different premise, preserving the System Shock series for fans while introducing a new game to the public.  It worked.  Bioshock is getting ready to release a third game in its series this year, with no signs of stopping yet.  Darksiders also received critical success even though it was an original IP.  It may have borrowed heavily from the Legend of Zelda and a few other games, but it wasn't called "The Legend of War."  You do not need to use someone else's name to sell a game.  Bayonetta wasn't called Devil May Cry 5, even though it could have been since the combat and mythology were very similar and it's director made the first Devil May Cry.  And Bayonetta was a critical darling, making a huge splash with Devil May Cry fans because of how fun and insane the game was despite it not involving their favorite devil killer.  You don't need to piggyback success from other games if you have a solid product.

Darksiders was an original IP with an original name that made enough money to have a sequel.  Original IP CAN survive!

            More than just original IP having the power to survive though, game companies need to be aware of fan backlash.  The game Turok is a perfect example.  People were hoping to sell a bland, generic shooter, where the player is a space marine on a planet of pirates and dinosaurs using the name Turok, because it had had a successful comic run and was a cult classic on the Nintendo 64.  People balked at Turok, panning it and refusing to buy the game.  The original Turok featured a time traveling Native American who fought off dinosaurs with alien weaponry, spiritual powers, and who dealt with aliens and it became a cult classic, even earning a sequel on the N64.  But the Turok game released in 2009?  That game was as bland and cookie cutter as they come and earned the ire of Turok fans for dashing their hopes of a true sequel.

Compare for yourself.  This is Turok 2008.  Can you tell this apart from any other generic shooter on the market?

This is Turok: Dinosaur Hunter.  Cyborg dinosaurs.  Now can you understand why fans hated the 2008 game?

            Hope is one of the cogs of the game industry that keeps it moving forward.  Players hope for sequels or ports, or re-releases of their favorite games.  So much so that they write in, phone in, petition, and go out of their way for game companies to notice that they have interest.  There is a surge of hope every time there is a chance for a Mother game to be released abroad, but it has yet to be realized.  The Mother fanbase is very loyal and devoted to the Mother/Earthbound series.  Now, imagine if an RPG that was just a bland fantasy fare took on the Mother name, which grounded itself in contemporary society with offbeat humor and a strange story?  The fans would go nuts, boycotting the game and crying foul against the company that made it.  So...why is it that game companies keep using names that will more than likely hurt their products?

The Earthbound/Mother series.  If another game took the name and tried to pass it off as a sequel and it didn't look or play VERY similarly to this one, the fans would boycott it en mass.  If they didn't just burn it, that is.

            Well, there are a number of reasons, though none of them are very good.  The first is the design by committee rule.  This is where a game is created strictly by the books, an uninspired, generic, waste of space that never attempts to challenge the player's thinking processes or their skill as a gamer.  Design by committee is not as uncommon as it needs to be and it even goes down to a name.  The committee has to decide what name will sell, even if they know their game is utterly generic.  If it's a movie licensed game, they use the movie's name, so fans of the movie know to pick it up, even if they may not enjoy the game once they've purchased it.  Otherwise, the committee may look at the rights they currently own and which games might fit into the mold, regardless of their original forms.  Syndicate was originally a tactical espionage RPG set in the far future, however it was re-released as a generic first-person shooter with only tangential connections to the original.  A committee looked at what properties they owned, slapped it on their game, and put a thin coat of paint on the surface to disguise it as that property.

This is Syndicate

This game is NAMED Syndicate, but is just another generic design by committee shooter.  Fans were pissed.

            Another good reason is the ability to hide a game's flaws from the public.  In the internet age, nothing is secret.  However, some developers have managed to keep the darker parts of their games' pasts out of the spotlight and give off an image of confidence and polish.  An excellent example of this is Aliens: Colonial Marines.  This game was released to abysmal scores by most, citing numerous graphical glitches, terrible AI and story, and a lack of focus on the Aliens license.  This was due to numerous delays, issues, and developer Gearbox having to start from scratch after a developer they outsourced it to threw out much of their work.   But, by creating an impressive E3 demo, they were able to pull off the illusion of everything being alright.  The demo showcased the Aliens using flanking maneuvers, their environments, and even climbing on the walls or hiding in vents to get people, showing off dynamic AI.  There were also several powerful character moments, where the player jovially flips off one of his marine comrades who is checking on him to see if he's alive.  And what got fans most excited was the ability to use a number of weapons, like the smart gun and power loader, from the Aliens movie.  However, few of these promised features made it into the actual game, and those that did were horribly butchered.  However, because of the illusion of a good game, the name was actually able to move some units before the truth was leaked.  Perhaps not enough units, but in cases like this, some is better than none.

This is the Aliens: Colonial Marines demo.  Yeah, that flame thrower power loader?  Doesn't exist in the real game.  This was just made to hide the poor production of the real thing.

            Press seems to be the biggest reason for these name decisions.  How do we take an utterly generic game and make it stand out, both on the internet and in gaming culture?  Give it a name people will recognize!  This logic is horribly flawed and usually results in fan backlash, like with Turok, however some companies don't care.  Some games are so play by numbers, uninspired, or just plain bad that they need the press to get people to even know their game exists.  This is how shovelware can sometimes reach some success on the market.  A company knows their game is bad, but they have to push it out to try and recoup some of their money, so they use a license they already own to drum up press and some people will be convinced by the media blitz to purchase the game.  Or they will just be morbidly curious as to how butchered their beloved franchise can be.  For some games and some companies, any press, even if they cry foul of the name of your game, is worthwhile.

            One of the saddest reasons for these naming schemes are corporate ignorance or mandate.  Often times, corporations seem to take an almost child-like glee in showing how out of touch they are with their consumers.  Capcom's continual use of on disc DLC or EA's online pass systems are proof of that.  So, some games may be given a name from a series or called a reboot simply because their corporate overlords say that's how it has to be.  They don't take into account the fan reaction, or if they do they don't care, thinking the games will sell well regardless.  This is why, in my opinion, all the decision making at a corporation, at least one involved in game development, should offer final say on certain decisions to the developers actually working on the product.  Maybe the corporation shouldn't create another bland Syndicate or Turok and, instead, just let the developers name their game something unique.  Even if it's bad or uninspired, it at least no longer has to compare to the standards of much better games before it.  By the standards of an original IP, maybe it won't seem as bad and can actually have a chance, rather than being dead on arrival.

Capcom: Pissing fans off with corporate BS since 2007

            There are other, more minor reasons, but they all fall into the same lines.  Before we wrap up, however, I just want to encourage gamers and developers to use their brains when thinking about the names of video games.  Not just sequels either.  When it comes to sequels, reboots, remakes, or what have you, use the resources available to you and do research before you plonk down $60.  Maybe wait a week until after a game is released and check out videos of it online to get an idea for story and gameplay or read a review.  Use your brain.  That also extends to general naming schemes in games as well.  What we haven't talked about are some of the esoteric or bland names in video games.  Fracture, Bullet Storm, Quantum Theory, Sina Mora, Nier, and so many others use names that ultimately tell little to nothing about their game beyond a broad, general idea.  Fracture, you can move earth or break stuff, possibly?  Bullet Storm, you shoot bullets?  Quantum theory...physics?  Sina Mora...I don't even know.  Nier...I know it's the protagonist's name but that tells me nothing about the game.

I love Suikoden.  It's a fantastic RPG series.  But look at that name...does it tell you ANYTHING about the game at all?  Names need to excite, not confuse players.  It needs to make them WANT to play.

            Look, naming is not as difficult as you might think.  If you're not going to use an already existing series, then think about what your story has involved in it, what you want fans to know about it and the best way to convey that to them in the minimal amount of effort.  Shin Megami Tensei Devil Summoner 2 Raidou Kuzunoha vs King Abbadon?  That's a bit too long.  It gives a lot of information, but really, Devil Summoner 2 would have said all it needed.  You summon demons to fight for you and this is the sequel.  Try to get across a feel for your game with the title as well as certain character details.  For example, the three games from Operation Rainfall: Xenoblade Chronicles, The Last Story, Pandora's Tower.  Think about what those names tell you.  Xenoblade Chronicles.  It's a story that has become something of a legend that has spiritual ties to previous games from the Xeno series and you wield a powerful sword.  The Last Story: This game focuses heavily on story and it is of such importance that it is the last one, meaning the last tale of a dying man, the last tale of a dying world, or the final chapter in someone's life.  This kind of title is beautifully ambiguous, allowing the imagination to sell the game for you.  Finally, Pandora's Tower.  This immediately invokes images of a forbidden tower which you are tasked to explore, drawing parallels to the Greek myth of Pandora's box with the fairy tale implication of towers as places of imprisonment that need to be surmounted by heroes.  All of those titles only use two words but the imagination of gamers sells them on only a premise.  Even a simple, ambiguous title can be pretty effective.  Halo, for example.  Religious warriors?  Death and rebirth?  God?  Halo may be a pretty bland fare, featuring space marines fighting a religious cult of aliens, but the title invokes a number of images in one's mind that the uninitiated might be taken in by.  And the game actually delivers on some of those images, which makes the title appropriate and not just deceptive.

The name is a bit too on the nose...sure it tells us what the game is about, but needs to leave more to the imagination

These game names set the imagination on fire with possibility.  THIS is how naming games should be

            These kinds of rules go for subtitles to games as well.  Numerous sequelized properties use subtitles to differentiate or whet the appetites of gamers.  Some can be spot on, but with a bit of dramatic flair.  Dragon Quest 5: Hand of the Heavenly Bride.  Immediately we know what we're getting.  A Dragon Quest game and all that entails, but now we know something about the story.  It will prominently feature marriage, perhaps not the player's but marriage in general, it will deal with destiny or heavenly powers, and it will involve the groom of said bride.  Titles like that set the imagination on fire.  Or how about Dead Rising 2: Off the Record.  Again, you know what you're getting.  Zombie killing whacky/serious fun.  But the title indicates that it is non canon, meaning it is a different take on what is already known.  This can easily sell certain players.

Even with established game series, a good subtitle is worth a lot.  Sentinels of the Starry Skies.  That gets me pumped for what's to come.

            My point is this.  Game developers.  Corporations.  Use your brains.  If you're creating a game, think about what the name you want to give it will mean and try to tailor it to so that it captures the imaginations of gamers.  A name of a character or a name of a species...if it doesn't have flair to it, it can be the death knell of a new property.  Don't try to put an already established name on something bland or unrelated.  Gamers will notice and they will be angry.  Do not use a game's name to entice players, then hide the fact that your product is garbage.  This will only erode a gamer's faith in your company and make them less likely to support you.  And finally, don't just slap any old name onto a game.  If a game is a movie license or a sequel, I know that sometimes there's no other option, but for an original IP...every original IP tries to do something with what they've got.  So think about what you're trying to do, the mood, the feelings, the desires you're trying to get across, and incorporate that into your naming.  It will make a difference.

            Gamers, this one also goes out to you.  Recognize what a game's name might mean.  The good ones which set your imagination ablaze and the bland ones which you forget almost as soon as you read them.  And use your resources.  The internet, word of mouth, your own eyes...don't buy into a game just because of a name.  It's fine to take an interest in a game because of the name, but it needs more than just the name supporting it.

            Games industry, put thought into what you name your games.  If it's original, give it something suiting the mood and style of the game.  If it's a sequel, a subtitle that tells us what to expect might be nice.  And if it's bland and uninspired, own up to it at least and try to make it work for you.  Don't use someone else's good name to sell a shoddy product.

            In the end, what's in a name?  Quite a lot, it would seem.

The Lost Art of Fixed Cameras

Well, I'm back after a long and somewhat miserable Christmas and New Year with perhaps one silver lining.  You see, one of my big presents for Christmas in 2012 were some Amazon Gift cards, which I promptly used to get a few older games for my collection.  One of these games was called Koudelka and I've spent the last few weeks playing it.  When I finished, I had two big thoughts about Koudelka.  The first, was how much the fixed cameras annoyed me, having to constantly switch perspectives and being only able to move and see within a specific area.  And the second was how much I enjoyed the atmosphere, because the fixed cameras kept the game very focused, very intense, and with a lot of details for a relatively unknown release at the time.  As such, I wanted to talk a little about fixed cameras.

Sure don't make em like this anymore.  More's the pity...

            Fixed cameras were used in place of free moving cameras for a number of reasons in the early days of 3d gaming.  There were limitations on how the camera could or should be moved without having it dissolve into the scenery or cause graphical distortions, it meant having to create less environments since you could basically show the player exactly what you wanted to and how you wanted them to see it, it was easy to use for puzzle mechanics, etc.  However, once free moving cameras using the second analogue stick of most controllers became the norm, fixed cameras sort of fell out of fashion, associated more with the tank controls of Resident Evil rather than the atmosphere.  I think this is a mistake.  Now, I'm not saying that everything was better with fixed cameras.  They had a number of issues and limitations.  But, they were a specific kind of tool for a specific kind of job.  And I think that, like most tools, there is an art to wielding it effectively that too many people are unaware of.

A fixed camera shot like this is highly atmospheric,  showing the characters as small compared to the monstrous laboratory around them.  Without any words, this shot conveys exactly the emotions we should feel when we first walk into this lab.

            Fixed cameras, to me, are a little like cinematography tricks.  They can be used most effectively for emphasizing mood.  Placing a camera at a low angle can make the main character seem larger than life, either to emphasize power or to deceive them about what is coming.  Placing it at a higher angle can emphasize weakness, useful for chase sequences or introducing elements that could harm players.  It is key in showing rather than telling a player how they ought to feel.  In this same vein of thought, I am reminded of an adage which made me truly appreciate cinematography. 

Putting the monster in the forefront and having it come in after the character de-emphasizes the player, making them seem weaker and unprepared for the larger than life beast coming at them.  Why don't we use these cinematography tricks as much anymore?!

Bob Chipman, also known as Movie Bob on the Escapist, once compared the original John Carpenter's "The Thing" to theremake/prequel in 2011.  While he praised the original's practical effects, as having something to interact with in a movie always seems more natural than CGI, he said something else that caught my interest.  "A lot of the old practical effects only looked good from a certain angle, so they forced film makers to shoot in a very specific way."  Fixed cameras are a lot like that idea.  There are some scenes which will have more meaning or will only make sense if viewed from a specific vantage point.  This is one of the driving ideas behind extended cut scenes in gaming.  However, because fixed cameras no longer limit how a scene can be shot, many developers seem to be getting sloppier with their work, at least in my eyes.  They haven't learned the basics of framing a scene.  If you want to talk cinematic game design, that is, game design that takes cues from cinema, fixed cameras are an important tool.  Because they are basically like looking through a camera in a movie that the audience cannot control.

Crappy CG of the 2011 Thing vs gorgeous practical effects of John Carpenter's version

Not hard to see which took more effort to create shot to shot, is it?

            Another benefit of fixed cameras comes from developers on a limited budget.  Most game designers like to break into the games industry using 3d games based off of existing engines.  However, this leads to a small problem.  You need to model and texture every wall, every floor, every ceiling, and every piece of furniture, plant, npc, etc. in any given area.  If they used a fixed camera, only one vantage point would need to be modeled because that would be the only vantage point seen.  It could save on development time and on costs.  However, because of how easy it is to misuse fixed cameras, they would need some basic skills with cinematography, as outlined above.

Take a good look at this scene.  A free roaming camera would need the whole room to be crafted from all angles.  A fixed camera only requires three walls, a floor, and some ceiling fixtures from only one angle.  Which do you think is cheaper to make?

            Because of that, I actually believe it might be useful for many aspiring developers to start with fixed cameras.  Use them to create more inexpensive 3d games and learn some basic cinematography skills.  One thing in particular I think that not only aspiring developers but even seasoned veterans could learn from fixed cameras is the adage, "Is it necessary?"  In the modern games industry, excess is a major problem.  Everything, from characters to environments are overblown, over designed, and often garish.  Ask the simple question of, "does seeing all this do anything for the player?"  Fixed cameras are all about economy.  What can be in a shot, what developers need to create for that shot, what can be conveyed with that shot, etc.  I think that going back to basics might help with some of the excess, slim down the games industry from the bloated monster needing to churn out cookie cutter AAA hits into a leaner, more experimental beast that is unafraid to try something new.

I love Darksiders, but look at this image.  This is the basic armor.  Do we really need all those lines, details, and polygons on the basic model?  Is it necessary at all?  Why?

          Koudelka was, for it's time, something new.  It was a survival horror tactical RPG, the likes of which were seldom seen after and have all but disappeared in the modern era.  However, it was not alone in using fixed cameras.  Resident Evil, Parasite Eve, even Final Fantasy pioneered using fixed cameras and did so with smaller, more capable teams than what the industry currently requires.  A part of me yearns for the experimental days of game design, with the atmosphere of a survival horror game being punctuated by a fixed camera showcasing just enough space for a window to break and a dog to leap through or an RPG showing you a gorgeous vista from the only angle that it actually can be gorgeous from.

Koudleka wasn't the only game to benefit from the use of fixed cameras.  Parasite Eve, Resident Evil, and countless others were made better through the focus they provided.

            This is not base nostalgia, either.  It is something that has been expressed by other gamers and reviewers in recent years.  Joe Vargas, better known as Angry Joe from Angryjoeshow.com, when reviewing Resident Evil 6 said something to the effect of "if Capcom cannot generate horror without all the overblown, crowdpandering, idiocy that was RE6, then perhaps they should return to the fixedcamera controls, since at least there you can build atmosphere."

Lackluster quicktime events more suited for an action game than Resident Evil 6...you SURE you don't wanna go back to fixed cameras, Capcom?

            I think fixed cameras are an under utilized tool.  Even if they were done out of limited graphics, not every game needs to look as pretty as Halo 4 or Call of Duty 4.  It is okay to have a game with limited, even polygonal graphics if the gameplay and/or story is solid.  After all, look at Minecraft.  It is blocky, it isn't the shiniest or most impressive of graphics, and the monsters are almost laughable, but it stands on its own because it is fun.  Sadly, even indie designers prefer to avoid using fixed cameras by using user controlled cameras or games that cannot make use of it, like 2-d games.

Not every game has to be this sleek to be good

            Closing out this discussion, let me just say two things.  First, I encourage people to try and release more games with fixed cameras, provided they can do it right.  Older Playstation and N64 games with these fixed cameras, and even into the PS2 era, were able to be more experimental, use them in unique ways, or just create a riskier game with them because there was less of a cost investment due to not having to make as many environments.  There's no reason why indie developers or even mainstream developers and publishers, Capcom, Square, Konami, etc. can't use these advantages to take a few risks, test the water with new properties, or just do something new.  If it costs less and it fails, it's less of a risk.  If it costs less and it succeeds, you get a high return on a low investment.  If you put all your money on the big AAA games or the samey numbered reiterations of sports games or what have you, then...you're asking to fail when the industry eventually turns on your "tried and true" game design.

Where have all the fixed cameras gone?  As time passes...

            Second, I want to say this.  Don't feel like you HAVE to used fixed cameras.  They are a tool and a useful one, but not for every game.  A game like Contra Rebirth or New Super Mario Brothers Wii U don't need a fixed camera and would actually be hindered by it.  However, understand what you can do with a fixed camera.  The cinematic way of building atmosphere without giving exposition or even having the characters speak at all.  How one shot can say all that it needs to in order to make a character in awe, uneasy, or at peace.  Because those skills will help immensely when the time comes to use the free moving cameras, since you'll know how to frame a shot.

Not every game NEEDS a fixed camera, but the lessons you can learn from them shouldn't be forgotten.

            Fixed cameras are part of the game industry's history.  We shouldn't forget about them.  We should learn from them.  Learn how they were used and to what effect.  It will undoubtedly help game design in the long run. 

Anyway, that's my take on fixed cameras.  Yeah, they can be annoyingly restrictive at times, but sometimes a game NEEDS to be restrictive to convey the right message, mood, or atmosphere...or keep costs down.  Something to remember.