   Taking "risks"
  Has anyone noticed something about video game designing that's a bit odd? Now, feel free to argue if you disagree (Just be calm about your argument), however, has anyone noticed that when companies take "risks", it's usually a good risk? According to what I've read quite a few times and heard, risks in video game industries, trying something new or unique, and usually, at least I believe so, these games make it well. However, when they don't take a risk and kind of knock off another game instead, the game usually fails unless of course, it's a game that's already popular and it's left near the same way it is (A sequel/prequel/trilogy/etc...) So isn't not taking a risk the REAL risk?   
  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 Siberianhusky89You 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 ZoidFrom 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.   