Does Playing a Game with the Same Formula Ever Bother You? [POLL]

[pbood2]

Hello everyone.

I was talking with a fellow member earlier over PM and it has come to my attention that people get tired of the same formula for Pokemon games being the player gets a pokemon, fights leaders and battles to defeat the evil team like the official pokemon games do.

I'm now curious if my game Pokemon Darkness even though it is incorporating two worlds is still mostly following the same familiar formula and I have seen people saying Blitzkrieg is a different type of concept which I do agree with which is awesome.

I guess I'm just having trouble trying to understand that if you don't have an evil team as an example to push the game forward, what other strategies could you use then to make the game go forward unless it's a free roaming type of game. But going from leader to leader with little to no plot seems kind of boring unless you love battling only. I personally am someone who loves plot and interesting concepts in a game so the free roam kind of thing wouldn't be fun for me.

I would appreciate feedback and comments on this because I'm quite confused on this.

I would love to be able to make Pokemon Darkness not just another entry in a familiar formula if possible but other than the evil teams route, I don't know how to.

Thanks for reading this and have a great day/night.

P.S. I apologize for the poll being public because I didn't know what public meant and thought it was the setting like any other poll. My bad.

Edited May 30, 2016 by pbood2

[Commander]

I think this question should be reworded as do you like to play franchise games like super Mario because it is kind of a silly question. The answer is yes.

[DemICE]

As a free gamer, i figure what i want to play and what i don't. If something is not for my general tastes, or i don't want to play it during a certain period of my life, then i will not. Therefore it will not bother me.

Games can be the way they want.

If a game follows a formula that:

1)i do not like --> i will simply look for another game

2)is overused --> if im up for something like that, i will play it. if im bored of it, i will not. BOTH things happen to me at different periods

In both cases, the game itself will not bother me. I might even play it at a different time.

OF course, a new and unique concept will always intrigue me more. Even if it does not meet my expectations, it will still have a different feeling, and i appreciate that.

For example, Pokemon Snakewood. If you play it for what it is (a troll game), and not expecting some quality masterpiece, you will actually have fun with it.

[Guzam]

The only reason I chose option 3 is because of this:

I do enjoy a game using the same formula every now and then. After all, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. However, I also like it when games try to build on top of or revise the formula to make it easier to use or more fun to use.

That said, if the formula is already not fun to me, and it never changes, I may not enjoy a game for that reason. At the end of the day, all I'm looking for is fun, enjoyable gameplay and heat af music. If you can't deliver on either of those, I won't bother playing the game.

If the formula is already fun, I'll play it, if it's a formula I didn't like in the first game or many before it, I won't enjoy it, simple as that.

[pbood2]

I think this question should be reworded as do you like to play franchise games like super Mario because it is kind of a silly question. The answer is yes.

Yeah I don't think I put the right question but asking if people like franchise games isn't what I'm trying to find out either.

Hmmm. My main focus was to find out if you don't have an evil team as the main purpose for moving the story forward, what else can writers or game makers use as tools to do so. I mentioned the free roam kind of concept in the opening post. And if there's isn't much else to move the story forward, then can people really be allowed to get bored of similar to the franchise games like fangames because there's not much the creator could do other than put the evil team to forward the story.

This concept confuses me like I mentioned in the main post.

[Lugruf]

It depends on what am I playing for. If I'm playing for abnegation, just to kill time, I don't care if it's the same. I actually want it to be the same, because I'm not interested in having to learn new things or master new mechanics, I just want something entertaining to kill time. I play League of Legends for example (which, in case you don't know, has a single map and all the games follow a similar structure), because it fulfills this function to me.

However, I also like playing more actively sometimes. In this case, I want a game that will tell me something new. It's like when I read a book. I don't want to read the same book once and again (or read the same book but change the names of the characters and places so that it looks like another book), I want to read new things. I want to live different stories. And this is in my opinion the main problem of storytelling in pokemon games. They all stick to the same formula invented in Pokemon Red and Blue. The evil team. Pokemon games have been telling the same story once and again by just adding new pokemon and changing the name to the characters! I think it's good to try to push the bonds and look for new stories to tell. And notice I am talking about storytelling, not about game mechanics. I have nothing against pokemon's mechanics, I like them. It's having to live the same story once and again what pisses me off.

I think this question should be reworded as do you like to play franchise games like super Mario because it is kind of a silly question. The answer is yes.

It doesn't necessarily have to do with franchises. Franchises normally keep the same mechanics from a game to another, but tell a different story. Either that or they are a purely mechanic based games where storytelling is not relevant.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Lugruf

[pbood2]

The only reason I chose option 3 is because of this:

I do enjoy a game using the same formula every now and then. After all, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. However, I also like it when games try to build on top of or revise the formula to make it easier to use or more fun to use.

That said, if the formula is already not fun to me, and it never changes, I may not enjoy a game for that reason. At the end of the day, all I'm looking for is fun, enjoyable gameplay and heat af music. If you can't deliver on either of those, I won't bother playing the game.

If the formula is already fun, I'll play it, if it's a formula I didn't like in the first game or many before it, I won't enjoy it, simple as that.

Thanks for your comment with picking option 3.

So I'm guessing you like pokemon's formula per say correct and you haven't gotten bored of it? Does that mean no matter how many fangames come out with a similar formula of get pokemon, beat leaders, beat evil team and be champ, you won't get bored and stop playing? I do agree gameplay and music help make a game playable in the first place though.

What you said makes sense about formulas so thanks.

Follow-up question then: people are saying don't change the formula of Pokemon by adjusting stats, types etc so then how can you build on top of the formula if people are afraid of the change to the formula? For example, Commander told me don't make luxray electric/dark even though he looks dark type at least.

Lugruf:

It depends on what am I playing for. If I'm playing for abnegation, just to kill time, I don't care if it's the same. I actually want it to be the same, because I'm not interested in having to learn new things or master new mechanics, I just want something entertaining to kill time. I play League of Legends for example (which, in case you don't know, has a single map and all the games follow a similar structure), because it fulfills this function to me.

However, I also like playing more actively sometimes. In this case, I want a game that will tell me something new. It's like when I read a book. I don't want to read the same book once and again (or read the same book but change the names of the characters and places so that it looks like another book), I want to read new things. I want to live different stories. And this is in my opinion the main problem of storytelling in pokemon games. They all stick to the same formula invented in Pokemon Red and Blue. The evil team. Pokemon games have been telling the same story once and again by just adding new pokemon and changing the name to the characters! I think it's good to try to push the bonds and look for new stories to tell. And notice I am talking about storytelling, not about game mechanics. I have nothing against pokemon's mechanics, I like them. It's having to live the same story once and again what pisses me off.

The first paragraph makes sense to me so good points.

I get what you are saying with the second paragraph and agree fully with you but then how can people doing the pokemon formula make it different in the story than just using an evil team? Do you have any ideas or suggestions because I was thinking of using 2 evil teams but if people are bored of that formula and thus won't play the game, I'm willing to modify and try to come up with something that is different and enjoyable for people story wise. I thought the two world concept would do that but it is just an extension of the evil team storyline though it adds a different type of gameplay.

Hmmm I really have a tough time thinking of something else other than an evil team to use for purposes of story or plot. Does storyline pathways count as a different story in your opinion?

Edited May 30, 2016 by pbood2

[Guzam]

Changing the formula is always a double-edge sword. On one hand, you may make it easily accessible to one group that didn't happen to like it before, but on the other hand, it could off-put the people who were already used to said formula.

I think if the formula were to change, it should mostly come in minor doses. Gold and Silver added two new types, which may have seemed like a lot, but there weren't really enough pokemon at the time to make a big deal out of it. Introducing an 18th type like Fairy after all the battle, stats and type adjustments up to this point in pokemon was a pretty major change to the gameplay. However, since there were so little amounts of fairies, it never really felt like Gamefreak was trying to bombard me with them. After all, it was just another type, and much like magnemites type change in gen 2, people would get used to it.

Now if gamefreak were to take away a type, that'd be a huge change in the games structure. For one, everyone is already used to the types we currently have, and if you were to take out peoples favorite types, you'd undoubtedly lose some of your fanbase due to this change. Making edits to types effectiveness and moves is ok, after all it's been happening since gen 2, and it's kind of just a standard at this point.

Basically, if you're going to change a games formula, it can't be anything too major. It should try to stick to its roots, while slowly branching out, so it can keep its original audience, while still attracting a newer one.

[Tartar]

As someone who has played 6Fire Emblem games, 6 Ace Attorney games, 4 Professor Layton games I can't with a good conscience say that I don't like formulaic gameplay. The important thing to me is the story rather than the gameplay itself. Therefore as long as there are minor twists to the gameplay and an intersting story I will continue to enjoy the gameplay.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Tartar

[Tomas Elliot]

A formula is what makes a game franchise recognizable, and keeps the fans coming. Rejuvenating a formula is one thing (it's what we were trying to do with Se7en, before it went the way of the dodo), but getting rid of it entirely?

Allow me to answer your question with a question: if they announced that the next Fire Emblem will have a Tron-like futuristic setting with a cyber vampire as protagonist, what would your reaction be?

[Raindrop Valkyrie]

The problem here you phood, your question is too vague.

All game are formulaic. literally everything is. There's a reason tropes etc exist. Becuase these thing crop up in media so often and all the time that they are recognizable. The thing is it's even worse with games. All game at this point derive some part of their system from elsewhere, literally they all do. Games as a media ((as many are.)) are all formulaic. It's especially in gaming's nature. Games are a genre that Iterates. Which each passing generation we improve upon the old by building onto it, etc etc... however we still have the tick boxes. Those things that make a game this genre of game. Modern Military shooters are twitch based, have fast reaction hit scan weapon, and FPS view etc...

The second part is this question is more than a simple yes/no affair and it's been boiled down too two very narrow answers. The problem here is that this question ((at least especially for me.)) Is highly conditional and it changes a lot based on so many factors they are impossible to see, it's hard to say that I definitely don't or do not. ((and as part of my first point saying you don't with how vague this question is implies you don't really like gaming just due to how inherent this is within the medium.)) It's jsut it's not well worded If I'm fran and what you asking is jsut so vague a topic it's really not wise to whittle it down to "yes and no" they are jsut too simple of answers. I'm a firm believer of less is more... however... sometimes too little is more detrimental than being overly detailed..

[pbood2]

A formula is what makes a game franchise recognizable, and keeps the fans coming. Rejuvenating a formula is one thing (it's what we were trying to do with Se7en, before it went the way of the dodo), but getting rid of it entirely?

Allow me to answer your question with a question: if they announced that the next Fire Emblem will have a Tron-like futuristic setting with a cyber vampire as protagonist, what would your reaction be?

Honestly I would say cool because it's something new to FE and I would be excited to see what they come up storywise with to match the cyber vampire protag.

I wasn't implying getting rid of the formula, I was just asking for suggestions on how you might be able to change it so it's not the usual formula storywise. Your first sentence makes sense though to me.

[YoshiofRedemption]

I'll agree that sometimes the same formula over and over again does get boring. Heck, you play one Mario game and you've essentially played them all, for example. Pokemon is also a great example of this. But if you can change things up (such as added distractions in Pokemon like contests, the Underground, etc.) or a unique plot line and implement them well, then it's all good.

[Absol-lutelty awesome!]

I've found most Pokemon games to stay interesting and rather immersive at most if not all times. how could you get bored of the little gems that are GBA rom hacks, right?

[FairFamily]

A game needs to satisfy a certain formla to make it feel like a game of that series. For instance Jack X while being a good game and all, is not a jack and dexter game to me while Dexter is. The same with pkmn mystery dungeon it is a good game and it has pkmn but it wasn't a ' pkmn game' to me if you catch my drift.

However these games are fundamently far away from the main series. However even (fan) games that are closer to the series do need to satisfy the 'formula of a pkmn game'. Take for instance pkmn distrust I will spoil a bit about it here so

Pkmn distrust about being a trainer whos arrives at a high quality pkmn school, you don't know why you are chosen because you're a average Joe.You faint immediately wake up without your pkmn. Then you meet a demonic teddiursa which then proclamis you're trapped untill you commit a murder without being caught. Considering you're in a pkmn shool, you get a pkmn which can assist you in the murder. If the innocents don't find the murderer then they all die. If they do then the murderer dies. You get some time after the body is found. . Once you got enough clues you can go make your case. If something is wrong in your case you have to fight a pkmn battle. In your free time you can battle with your unmurdered students or socialise with them.

Even this which is closer to the main games still didn't feel like a pkmn game to me.

However I also played pkmn reborn, rejuvenation, se7en, desolation, reborn hardcore . They all follow the same formula: beat the gym leaders, defeat the evil organisation, become champion (not yet but still),.. . Yet they feel different to me and aren't the same or a rehash of a game. That is because they supplied additional elements to their formula:

Reborn's formula contains character and morality as additional elements to their formula.

Ferns betrayel and his stareoff with Florinia are key points of realistic characters. Same with Corey's suicide, Kiki's illness or Cals rebirth. Titania's and saphira's violent display questions our morality regarding which team is right.

Reborn use these to explore the people in the world , why they do the things they do while questioning our sense of morality. This creates a whole new formula.

Rejuvenation formula contains mystery and 'vibrancy':

Rejuvenation main story introduce characters like Venam and Melia. They do some serious but sometimes they do normal teenager stuff like dancing, arguing or partying. It creates a sense of normality and upbeateness that counteract the rather depressing nature of a pokmen where you either advance in your league quest like a alcoholic or foil the evil plans. However Rejuvenation also add lot of mystery about characters like who is crescent or who is madame x. An why does my mother (yes a pkmn game with a real important mother) have no soul and gets described as a doll by everyone.

Pkmn se7en adds exploration to the formula. They did this by simply using no previous gen pkmn and making custom pkmn. Whcih means that you're entire team is surprising and exciting. Which pkmn am I finding here? What do they learn? Do they evolve? What is my enemy using? By adding this could create a huge amount of excitement and freshness into the game. By adding no old gen pkmn they made sure you would no fall back to the secure/boring choices.

Pkmn desolation is a pkmn game that adds choice to the formula:

The reputation system where depending on your dialogue choices and actions your characters get different appreciations by different characters. The choice between Shiv or Nova. These choices start to have serious impact on how your story evolves. But that is not all the choice this game offer. You have credits a limitted resource which you can use to buy, tms, ability capsule or even rare pkmn. This means that you have to make decisions on how to invest your credits without the option to getting it all.

This choice means that the adventure, becomes closer to your adventure.

The last one is reborn hardcore, you could say it is has the same formula as reborn but that isn't true either. Reborn Hardcore added more difficulty to the formula of pkmn reborn. The name itself makes it clear and gives away what you can expect. This gives Reborn hardcore another feel to it. For instance the reputatuon system comes in e16 and I care about it in reborn but not hardcore. Why because I didn't enjoy/play hardcore for it, it was the augmented challange that made me enjoy reborn hardcore.

So long post short, you need to follow a cerytain formula to create a game that fits the series but even with this formula you have a lot of room to expand upon. That's the problem with a lot of series like the pkmn main games, they use almost the excact same formula with very little differences. This makes the series feel stale and boring. So what is the nature of pkmn? To me it seems (not sure more a feeling) that the nature of pkmn is creating your team and overcomming challenges with said team. So I think that a well executed pkmn game could work with instead of being a trainer being a police officer or detective. It will still be difficult since you have to make sure the newly add elemnts don't interfere with the basic ones but I think it would still be a pkmn game to me.

Edited May 30, 2016 by FairFamily

[YinYang9705]

That 1st game you listed just sounded like danganronpa in pokemon form.

[FairFamily]

That 1st game you listed just sounded like danganronpa in pokemon form.

It is based on it but I don't know that series so I just told it in the terms I knew.

Edited May 30, 2016 by FairFamily

[Commander]

I was on mobile and on a break so I couldn't really explain myself so now I can go into detail. This question does not really help find an answer since it's way too vague. If you look at statistics, the games the sell the most are ones that change very little. Look at CoD, Super Mario, and especially Pokemon. CoD shot themselves in the foot with literally changing so little which caused their decline in sales, but Pokemon still continues to thrive just by adding so little changes each gen which is mostly refine the formula.

People do like change and innovation, but it's such a huge risk and can really flop back at you. Look at the game Wonderful 101. Great game, high praise, really cool innovation, but it flopped. I could name loads of games that this happened to and loads that were successful. It's merely luck of the draw. Another game that I can think of that really changed the formula was Xenosaga II. That kills what would've been a really good and unique series because it took away quite a bit of what people loved about the first game.

Your game and the new military one (sorry the name slipped my mind) really aren't innovative games since they use the same base formula. It just brought concepts to the game that really stand out. Super Pokemon Eevee edition is the only game to go with a semi innovative game based on Final Fantasy style fighting. Bringing new ideas and concepts work best as people do like consistent formulas and being able to jump into something they can pick up fast. People love the core game of Pokemon but due to the weak plot, people thirst for changes in story. Most of the fangames bring something different to the table. Dark Rising has brutally unfair difficulty, Reborn brought a new style of story and field effects along with the infamous 6 Pokemon for leaders, Hardcore built off of Reborn's system. Rejuvenation brought fake moves into the Reborn formula. Suzerain's games all have crazy amounts of features. The FireRed Omega series brought a harder version of the main games. Ruby destiny brought a hack series all of which are pretty fun with interesting stories. There are even Crystal and Gold remakes made from hacks. Heck, there's one based on the anime.

So I don't know what you're looking for in your question. All fan-games/hacks bring something new and unique on their take of Pokemon. Maybe you forgot, but I was discussing Chrono Cross with you about the two world concept and how very few games have done something like that recently or at least Chrono Cross style. I could argue the CoM project brings something new to the table as something like it hasn't appeared in 15 years (cough Pokemon Stadium cough) and certainly hasn't done it on this scale.

[thatoneperson1123]

I think you mentioned my game, Blitzkrieg, which really doesn't stray from the Pokemon formula. It still has gym leaders, an elite 4, and an evil team, all core concepts of a Pokemon game. It also doesn't even have the more innovative ideas introduced in, say, Reborn, with its field effects.

I don't subscribe to the Yahtzee notion that following a formula=bad (and even then, it's only bad if it's a series Yahtzee dislikes -.-). The phrase "there's nothing new under the sun" comes to mind, and for the most part it's not about being original, it's about putting a spin on something that makes it feel fresh. Mario 3D world is a great example of this, taking the smooth platforming mechanics of Mario games and adding another dimension to it (plus cat suit). It's all about how you execute your idea, regardless of whether it's new or innovative or what have you.

[Dante52]

I think a lot of really good things have been said here about formulaic game-play and branching out.

You said you were having a hard time thinking of something besides an evil team pushing the plot forward. Just some examples, you could have a deity/god-figure/just really big strong thing causing problems, but people don't know that's what's doing it at first. Or maybe something is wrong on a global scale, one of those "the earth is dying" kinda games. Or maybe pokemon are dying out and everyone is scrambling to try and fix it. (SPDS = Sudden Pokemon Death Syndrom (That would be a sad game...)). Or you could have an evil country rather than and evil team. Or a country that seems good but is secretly run by a small, evil group, pulling the strings behind the scenes. These are just some random ideas that popped into my head, and you could probably implement these while sticking with the general pokemon formula (battle 8 bosses, take on big bosses, catch 'em all) or you could implement these without doing that. I think what's important is having some sort of motivation to keep everyone moving forward. Just my take on it though.

I will say this though. I think I would hug someone if they would call their evil organization something other than "Team ______ ".

Good luck on the game!

Edited July 15, 2016 by Dante52

[Dragon116]

Personally, I find it's the story of a game that drives me to like it, regardless of whether the formula is repeated. The point of fangames is to present players with an alternative way to play with the same formula. Usually, this means new challenges, but players are able to cope with them because of familiar tactics.