Taking "risks"

Risks fail all the time. Take mirror's edge. It was a new concept, but the execution kind of failed, and it wasn't very popular. A lot of sequels do well (halo 1, 2, and 3, Warcraft, Starcraft (2 is coming out), etc.)

Virtual Boy. Do i need to say any more?

Quite often while games which take risks and try out new ideas are well received by critics they don't do that well financially. Some examples being Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Okami. In the end what it comes down to it in a company is how much money is the game going to make.

Quote:

Original post by Siberianhusky89 ...has anyone noticed that when companies take "risks", it's usually a good risk?

That's because the bad risks usually end up at the bottom of a bargain bin, never to be seen again...

Alright, you can state your opinion, however, to say ALL the time is a ridiculous claim. SNK's King of Fighters Series almost always takes risks and their fighting games turn out great. Metal Gear Solid used new systems every time and took risks in doing so. Final Fantasy takes risks by doing something new in their battle system and they usually succeed, though, I should point out that 11 and 12 were a bit disgraceful in my opinion. 11 turned into an MMORPG which honestly shouldn't suit Final Fantasy... Final Fantasy 12 used a very odd turned based system, it DID succeed, but in my opinion, it's kind of a bore. 13 looks like by using their new real time battle system, they might just come through yet. Anyhow, Resident Evil 4 took a risk by changing their system completely from a Survival Horror to an action game that looks like a Matrix or whatnot. Personally, I would have preferred the one they would have done earlier which stuck with a more traditional style, but then again, I'm a survival horror fan and chances are, it wouldn't have been successful as it had become. Okami used a new system with painting brushes across the screen and making symbols and such to proceed in the game. Silent Hill, the series, stuck with a similar type of system where the character was a bit tipsy, didn't use weapons well, and stuck to it's system of fighting off enemies, then later decided to make Homecoming which took from Resident Evil 4's shooting system a bit and was actually a failure by trying to "Play it safe".

You can't say taking a risk fails because I just proved points in which risks were a success and proved points where "playing it safe" turned out to be a disaster. Killer 7 may not have been huge, but that was probably due to promotional value. I'm sure if people had played that game, they would have been amazed by it, and it used alot of unique ways of doing things. Also, Conker's Bad Fur Day went a new road by using cursing, swearing, and little parodied jokes and fights based on moves or other games and such, and that game did very well. I know that might be a bit older of a game, however, it was still a risk to take, and the risk went well. If we were to never take risks, then games would never progress into something new, so risks had to have succeeded some point. I'm not saying that taking from games is a bad thing, but trying to make it better and concentrating on it doesn't seem like a good idea. Let's take Deadspace for an example, it took from Resident Evil 4 a bit and did well, but it concentrated on it's own theme. You were in outerspace and aliens tried to kill you. You had really hardcore weapons to try and defeat them and there was the gravity system as well, so technically, they took a risk in some ways and took from other games a bit. I'm not saying that taking from other games will fail always, I'm just saying, shouldn't you stick to ideas that you're passionate about instead of the ideas that others are passionate about and stealing it from them or whatnot?


*Some Spoilers on MGS4, if you don't know enough, don't read*

I know there are games that have taken some risks and have failed a bit (Example: Street Fighter: Third Strike), but there are alot of games that have taken risks and have succeeded because of it. Metal Gear Solid was a game that deals with sneaking, a deep storyline, great voice acting, and some killing as well, in a way that was a risk because who did it like that? Metal Gear Solid 4 changed with a new system of stealth with it's Octocamo and it had a new way of how the game was set through, and it was still successful even with it's very new way of playing.

LittleBig Planet was a risk. Would you really have thought a game that deals with little sandbags and running through different levels to get things to make your own little levels would have been big? I can't think of a game that's even similar to LittleBig Planet. They were an indie company too, it was their first game, and they took a huge risk by making a game with nothing that was similar, and setting it as their first footstool of success. Who even HEARD of MediaMolecule before that game? Not too many people I bet. Also, just because a game isn't popular everywhere, doesn't mean it wasn't a success.

Let's take an Indy made game like Akatsuki Blitzkampf for example. Many of you may not have heard of this game, but in Japan, it has become a very popular fighter and it was made by a group of small people. Now then, in alot of ways, it didn't take a risk, however, in many more, it DID take a risk.

Risk: It had a small roster. It used characters that were unique to fighting. It used odd graphics for a fighting game that were really well drawn. It used backrounds that were photographed and polished to look like part of the game. It used a unique battle system as well. It used a very simple battle system style that involved only 3 types of normal hits (Normally, a fighting game consists of a weak punch, strong punch, weak kick, strong kick, but this game only involved a weak, medium, or strong hit.) that influence how your supers and such might go. It used the parry system that's very easy and different from most games.

Unrisky: The game used common type of fighting characters as well such as a shoto character, grappling character (Which had a unique style anyhow), a Guile type character (Most fighting games have these as well), and a combo based character who is still unique and has more options compared to most combo characters. They have grabs for every characters like SF3, they took a parry system (which again, is different and failed in SF3), they use a Super and Ultra system, they took basic motions, but most fighting games do that.

Point is, even though there were some unrisky things they did (Which were more like common sense things for fighting games, you wouldn't want to make a move that's impossible to perform for the player, that's for sure.) But they took alot of risks as well by making some of the characters the way they are and doing alot of other things such as giving out the game for free for a bit and eventually having it set for arcade carts. The game became so big, they've made a sequel now.

Anyhow, it's alright to take ideas from games, but honestly, I think going with an idea you'd truly love and not taking it from the aspect of "They did this and it was big, so we should do it too" would be better.

Quote:

Original post by Siberianhusky89 You can't say taking a risk fails because I just proved points in which risks were a success and proved points where "playing it safe" turned out to be a disaster.

I don't think anybody has said that. But at the same time, you can't say that "risk = good" and "play it safe = bad" because I can think of plenty counter examples to that as well. I guess all you can say is that "sometimes taking risks works out for the best, and sometimes it does not." In which case, what's the point of saying anything?

Although, I would just point out that being different doesn't make you risky. The Virtual Boy was definitely a risk for Nintendo, but I can't see how you can consider the differences between the Final Fantasy games as being "risky" - except for FFXI being an MMO, they've all been basically the same from a gameplay point of view (i.e party RPG, random enemy encounters, turn-based combat, etc)

Well, I'm not saying that playing it safe is not a good way to go sometimes, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be the way ALL the time. I've seen so many games stack up that are playing it safe by taking so many things from another game that it's not even it's own game anymore. Of course, as you stated, there are times when risks have been taken and they've failed. I was mostly responded to the first response that was made that all risks fail. In the video game industry's point of view, trying something new in a game or something that failed and trying to make it better, is taking a risk. Playing it safe seems to be, trying to take something that has already succeeded and trying to improve on that single idea. The Virtual Console did turn out to be a failure, but that's just one failure, even if it was a huge one. There are alot of other games that have tried something new and have turned out to be great games. Personally, I'd rather make a game that was actually GOOD then to make a crappy game that would sell much better, that may sound illogical, however, as one who wishes to become a game designer, I'm following what I believe true.

I'll help make a game for others and such, however, I won't go around making mainstream games that people will buy because they're just there to please everyone with little effort such as (No offense to anyone on here) Street Fighter 4 which is pretty unbalanced, has a horrible soundtrack, horrible storyline, the graphics are not even that well made, especially if you're using the 3D Programs we have in this day and age with these new consoles, and after all that "effort", they STILL couldn't balance the game. In my opinion, it was meant to please the biggest crowd than to make a great game because alot of mainstream music (Not all mind you) sucks (And mainstream usually has the biggest crowd and is popular or it wouldn't be mainstream), alot of mainstream gamers think that 2D Graphics are outdated and 3D graphics are harder to make and are of better quality, the people who liked Street Fighter 2 most likely want to follow the storylines of their favorite characters whom they of course, brought back, and everyone's favorite characters are easier to play than ever.

From the industry point of view, everything is a risk. However not all actions are as risky as others.

Taking risks is like making bets. From the perspective of the publishers: Do you risk your money on a project that you are pretty confident will give you money back plus a nice small profit, or do you risk it on the one that may win the big jackpot but could lose it all? From the perspective of a developer pitching a project to a publisher: do you offer the "play it safe" project that you are fairly confident will get accepted, or the bold risky new idea that may strike it big but is a lot harder to explain?

In the long run, it seems to me that the successful publishers have a healthy mix of core product lines that play it safe, but also fund a few "out there" risky projects that have the potential to become something new. For developers it's a bit harder - it seems new studios pretty much have to play it safe until publishers are willing to trust them with funding for ambitious new ideas. If you're going indie though, brand new ideas are not only feasible but encouraged.

In short, it's not so much about taking risks, but taking calculated risks.

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid From the industry point of view, everything is a risk. However not all actions are as risky as others. Taking risks is like making bets. From the perspective of the publishers: Do you risk your money on a project that you are pretty confident will give you money back plus a nice small profit, or do you risk it on the one that may win the big jackpot but could lose it all? From the perspective of a developer pitching a project to a publisher: do you offer the "play it safe" project that you are fairly confident will get accepted, or the bold risky new idea that may strike it big but is a lot harder to explain? In the long run, it seems to me that the successful publishers have a healthy mix of core product lines that play it safe, but also fund a few "out there" risky projects that have the potential to become something new. For developers it's a bit harder - it seems new studios pretty much have to play it safe until publishers are willing to trust them with funding for ambitious new ideas. If you're going indie though, brand new ideas are not only feasible but encouraged. In short, it's not so much about taking risks, but taking calculated risks.

You make a very interesting point. It's odd what can and can't be called a risk, I guess the term risk is quite subjective though. Anyhow, I would like to hear the opinions of others, but please don't use the following words.

"Always"
"Never"

The reason I ask you not to say this is because saying "This will always work" or "This would NEVER work" is, in my opinion, a horrible mistake to make when discussing such matters. Those terms are only used when using deductive reasoning and not when arguing an opinion.

Example: Corn is always corn.

Example of what shouldn't be: All corn tastes bad.

The problem with risk-taking games is that people are liars.

When you ask people what they want to see in games, most of us will talk about new ideas, innovation, not just reissuing the same game with a few stat changes (I'm looking at you, EA Sports!) and doing something new, exciting and different.

And then they'll go out and buy Resident Evil 5 (RE4 with a new skin) and Metal Gear Solid 4 (sorry, but it's barely changed since MGS1, no matter what risks you perceive) Call of Duty 5, and all the other games which have taken almost no risks. Because no matter what we say, we don't like change, and we're afraid of spending $60 on a game we might hate, so we play it safe just like the publishers and developers do. We buy a game which is exactly the same as the last version bar a few changes, and we do so because we know we enjoyed that last version.

I'll tell you now, if they brought out five more games which were exactly like Fallout 3, but they had a new wasteland and new missions, with exactly the same graphics and gameplay. I'd buy all five of them. I spent a good fifty or sixty hours playing the first one, and I'm quite sure I'd spend a good thirty or forty on each of another five almost identical ones so long as the stories, names and missions were different enough to trick me into calling it a different game.

We're our own worst enemies (I'm looking at you, people who buy EA Sports games!)

Quote:

Original post by Siberianhusky89 The reason I ask you not to say this is because saying "This will always work" or "This would NEVER work" is, in my opinion, a horrible mistake to make when discussing such matters. Those terms are only used when using deductive reasoning and not when arguing an opinion.

If you're referring to doomhascome's sentence "Risks fail all the time", I think you grasped the wrong end of the stick there. I'm fairly sure that wasn't meant to mean "all risks fail every time", but rather "there are examples every day of people taking risks that end up failing". It was more of the fiipside to the coin of "Risks succeed all the time" which seems to be part of how you initially presented the argument.

Part of the issue with taking risks is that sometimes they will fail. If they didn't and always succeeded, they wouldn't be risks now, would they? [wink]

Quote:

Original post by sybixsus The problem with risk-taking games is that people are liars. When you ask people what they want to see in games, most of us will talk about new ideas, innovation, not just reissuing the same game with a few stat changes (I'm looking at you, EA Sports!) and doing something new, exciting and different. And then they'll go out and buy Resident Evil 5 (RE4 with a new skin) and Metal Gear Solid 4 (sorry, but it's barely changed since MGS1, no matter what risks you perceive) Call of Duty 5, and all the other games which have taken almost no risks. Because no matter what we say, we don't like change, and we're afraid of spending $60 on a game we might hate, so we play it safe just like the publishers and developers do. We buy a game which is exactly the same as the last version bar a few changes, and we do so because we know we enjoyed that last version. I'll tell you now, if they brought out five more games which were exactly like Fallout 3, but they had a new wasteland and new missions, with exactly the same graphics and gameplay. I'd buy all five of them. I spent a good fifty or sixty hours playing the first one, and I'm quite sure I'd spend a good thirty or forty on each of another five almost identical ones so long as the stories, names and missions were different enough to trick me into calling it a different game. We're our own worst enemies (I'm looking at you, people who buy EA Sports games!)

EA... XD Yeah... I know what you mean by that, but I disagree. Metal Gear Solid and Metal Gear Solid 4 has alot of change. Both had amazing storylines, but that's the most similar thing about them. The way you aim, shoot, the CQC battle system (It's more similar to MGS3 if anything), the rolling system, the new extension of guns, the environment and space provided in the game, the different ways you can make it to a new destination, the influence you can have on different groups, the octocamo, the idea of using stealth to follow a single person kind of like in a mafia movie, the fatigue idea was interesting as well, the game brought in new enemies as well by adding robot type creatures to the battlefield, the graphics were of course a huge change, the Metal Gear MK2/3 (Otacon's little robot), the boss fights were kind of similar in a way, but VERY different in many others.

I don't recall fighting Octopus because it never happened, Raven could never fly and I don't even remember ever fighting a flying opponent (Besides Psycho Mantis, but he doesn't really count cause he was levitating), the Wolf was different because she had a machine that could run up and ram you, not to mention all those people trying to kill you while you're doing that, the Psycho Mantis mock was different as well. I mean, names were taken, but if you look at the actual game, there wasn't much to relate, MGS2 was a closer replica of MGS1, and it was SUPPOSE to be XD

Anyhow, Fallout 3 is a kind of different game that was taken from it's main idea and rescrapped into an Oblivion style game by the guys who made Oblivion as well. It's very much Oblivion and Fallout mixed together... At least I think so.

@Trapper Zoid

Well, I never stated that risks succeed ALL the time, I'm just saying that there's a good portion of times when not only have they succeeded, but they've done pretty well for themselves. Heck, KOF2003 took a risk by changing some of the teams and getting rid of some characters and the battle system a bit, and in my opinion, it didn't go so well and was one of the least popular King of Fighters, so of course risks aren't going to make it all the time, though, I think I was stating that I kind of lean towards taking a risk, I'll even let it go out of my own pocket if I'm confident enough about the game. Anyhow, you make a good point otherwise Trapper Zoid, and for that, I give you some respect ^^

The big difficulty with business risks is that there's so many variables involved. It's a whole big area of management (risk management). It's also why you can get really good money as a top actuary for an insurance firm. [wink]

Most of the titles you've listed have been part of a popular brand. With those games you've already got a large amount of brand power, so customers are already going to be interested in your game. The main risk is cheapening the brand and alienating customers for the next sequel. You'll note that the core elements of the games need to remain the same - the battle systems in a Final Fantasy game might get tweaked, but the JRPG nature about how the game is structured remains the same (FF XI being a notable exception). Usually companies make a sub-label if they want to spin a francise off in a slightly risky new direction, such as Final Fantasy Tactics or Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles.

The risks also vary a bit depending on who is making them. For a publisher funding a studio the big risk isn't a poorly selling game, it's the studio fails to deliver a game at all. Anything that sounds far too ambitious sounds alarm bells to publishers, not so much because they're afraid to take risks but that they've been burnt too many times before. Most of the really wild game ideas that make it to a final game come either from extremely well established developers who have the experience to gain the publisher's trust, or from self funding.

I also think there's quite a bit of sample bias here. You can't look at published games and conclude anything about whether "risky" games are more likely to succeed or not. The whole point of publishers is that by the time a game is published, it's already got a pretty good chance of succeeding. After all, a publisher isn't going to accept a game idea that doesn't have much chance.

You need to look at all the ideas that a game studio will present to the publisher which don't even get off the ground, then I'm sure you'll see that it's quite probably the other way around - more "risky" ideas would be rejected at this stage than at any other stage. Of course, nobody actually lists all the ideas they've presented to a publisher and been rejected on, so you'll never really know :-)

Quote:

Original post by Codeka I also think there's quite a bit of sample bias here. You can't look at published games and conclude anything about whether "risky" games are more likely to succeed or not. The whole point of publishers is that by the time a game is published, it's already got a pretty good chance of succeeding. After all, a publisher isn't going to accept a game idea that doesn't have much chance. You need to look at all the ideas that a game studio will present to the publisher which don't even get off the ground, then I'm sure you'll see that it's quite probably the other way around - more "risky" ideas would be rejected at this stage than at any other stage. Of course, nobody actually lists all the ideas they've presented to a publisher and been rejected on, so you'll never really know :-)

Me? Bias?! That's impossible! That could never happen! XD Sorry, that was probably a bad joke, anyhow, that's a possibility that I cannot deny, perhaps there is a bit of bias in me that I can't see, however, I try XD I just look at game industries lately because of my friends. Honestly, I don't care who makes the game as long as it's badass and I enjoy it XD Though, I won't say that (even if I enjoy the game) the game was amazing, example Quest 64 had too many flaws in it, however, I had alot of fun playing that game. I argue against people disapproving of the soundtrack (Limited instruments) because that's their only reason to argue when the soundtrack was quite pleasing. The graphics were pleasing as well. The main problem was the storyline only held up to the player if the player let it do so and the gameplay was repetitive sometimes (There would be long walks and grindage). Anyhow, I think there will always be that small bit of bias somewhere in us all. XD

I personally thought Mirror's Edge was fantastic and way under-hyped.

Quote:

Original post by Siberianhusky89 Me? Bias?! That's impossible! That could never happen! XD Sorry, that was probably a bad joke, anyhow, that's a possibility that I cannot deny, perhaps there is a bit of bias in me that I can't see, however, I try XD

I'm not saying you're biased, I'm saying the sample is biased. Games are only picked up by publishers because the publisher believes it has a good chance of succeeding, whether it's "risky" or not. So you can't really look at published games and make conclusions about which kinds of games are going to be successful - you need to look at all game ideas, including the ones that never even make it out the door.

I'd say that for every game that a typical publisher publishes, they would look at dozens of game ideas that they simply reject out of hand, and I'm pretty sure that out of the dozens they reject, there's going to be more risky games than "safe bets" in there.

Quote:

Original post by Siberianhusky89

[personalrant]
Do not make the mistake of confusing good stories with convoluted/'angsty' ones. They are entirely separate entites. I see this mistake all the time in praise of the Final Fantasies and MGS. If a reader cannot follow your story, (more in the case of the latter) then you have failed as a writer. This is not subject to debate; anyone that's ever done any serious literary work will tell you such. I've had it drilled into *me.* The fact that Mr. Kojima even needed to *include* flashbacks for the ending cinematics in order for people to follow his plot speaks more loudly/cogently than anything I can post here. My issues with Final Fantasy are far greater, but I don't want to come off as overly hostile, so I'll save that for another thread.
[/personalrant]

Quote:

Original post by AAA I personally thought Mirror's Edge was fantastic and way under-hyped.

A notion I wholeheartedly second. Everyone I've introduced to this game really loved it. Obviously that isn't going to account for *everyone,* but I believe the game's problem was the fact that it was under-marketed rather than any particular failure of execution. Though complaints of repetition have been leveled against the game, I personally think it hit just the right balance of 'easy to learn and hard to master.' I will concede that there were some pacing problems, (DICE hasn't done too much single-player stuff AFAIK, so partially forgiven) but hopefully they'll learn from their mistakes.

XD Oh, sorry I misinterpreted what you said and don't worry, I didn't find what you said offensive, but either way, you make a good point.