Sessler's Soapbox: Changing the Game is a Good Thing

Posted: August 10, 2010
Sessler's Soapbox: Changing the Game is a Good Thing
Adam uses Madden NFL 11 as an example how some innovations can anger the gaming community, even if they're for the better.

Comments are Closed

  • Chonny


    Posted: October 7, 2010 12:47 AM
  • hypra

    save pc gaming sessler.

    Posted: October 6, 2010 3:48 AM
  • kento_the_cruel


    Posted: September 30, 2010 11:29 PM
  • whocares88

    garnteed what dappened RB6V1 to sequelel let peop;e who want to play online have their way sh@#4 i feel a true gameplay is one where your like playing silent hill 1 for the first time when it came out (psx).

    Posted: September 21, 2010 10:48 PM
  • OrpheumZero

    I for one agree with Adam. He's actually acting MATURE, and REASONABLE. Honestly, it's so funny how childish people get over some of the slightest changes in things. inFAMOUS 2 was a great example of studpidity from people. So Cole grew some hair, that was actually pretty realistic. Most game sequels just give the character a different set of clothes and maybe a scar or two and say "he/she's older now". By changing Cole, it felt like he had was changed as a person, not some digital doll who perpetually wears the same clothes throughout their X-plus series of games.

    As he said, the industry has to change, even Yahtzee from the escapist said this, both of these guys know that we can't childishly cling to the same tired formula forever, or else we're dooming ourselves to another possible "death" of the gaming industry.

    While I will admit I do think it's neat to bring some of the Cole look, I would still hope he'll have changed enough to not feel he just got a new paintjob like some bipedal car that fires electricity.

    Posted: September 2, 2010 5:42 PM
  • Cosmo1882/Hangslow

    I guess...

    Posted: August 28, 2010 10:44 PM
  • barlu99

    Dear Mr Sesslers

    The point I would like to make is that MOST of the fear about "bad change" in gameplay comes from in my a kind of mob mentality, for example when you watch a movie that you like with a group of friends and the first thing some one says generally is how bad something was or how X ruined the movie. Most of the time I feel such points are very specific and minor to the story as a whole. This sets the rest of the reviews of the others to start with a negative or to nitpick. What I mean in relation to games, is because of such franchises like Blizzard there is a sense of "I'M BETTER THAN YOUz" or I have to prove my "teh leet ness". This ties in with your points about change because of the way people react to negative input about media in general (not the news media). The same thing occurs when a sequel is made for a movie and you touched on this in the recent feedback episode. Sadly I feel that this train of thought will not likely change even thought I wish, hope, and pray that it does because a game is designed for enjoyment. I feel that nowadays desigers are spending to much time trying to just wow the player, which tends to cause an effect that we see in horror movies; a kind of compounding interest where you have to out-do the previous wow/horror aspects. My best advice for people who play "sports games" is never tell anyone that you play them, or your opinions will never be given the light of day again.

    Posted: August 27, 2010 3:30 PM
  • Shiztacular

    Yay change!!

    and BTHO t.u.

    Saw Em Off Cal

    Thanks and Gig 'Em

    Posted: August 19, 2010 8:29 PM
  • madhatter81

    Didn't the same thing happen pretty recently when the first Diablo III gameplay was shown? I remember thinking WHO CARES!! I just wanna f'n play it lol..

    Posted: August 18, 2010 11:05 PM
  • Capxeno

    I have a friend who thought Halo 2 was the greatest game to ever be on a Game Stop shelf, I say thought because I have long since introduced him to Silent Hill 2.

    Then here comes Halo 3, and ever single of one of his complaints had something to do with a change in a gun's textures, or that is it not like Halo 2 enough. The irony is that, if my memory has not failed me in my early old age. Is that he did not get this high opinion of Halo until months of enjoying the Xbox live mechanic.

    He was so preoccupied with the changes that, he beat the campaign on legendary and then never bothered to sign into Xbox live to play matchmaking. The very thing that had earned his high esteem of the previous game.

    I suggest to avoid such frivolous disappoint, people should go into a squeal with a clean slate and make no comparisons to the previous title, until you have experienced the game in full. If afterwords you feel something is still to be desired, chances are you are right. However, if you feel you legitimately enjoyed your trek through this game, then bagging on it only because of minor changes is not only pointless, but hypocritical.

    Posted: August 18, 2010 11:25 AM
  • AirPrime

    Okay Mr.Sessler, have a seat and count to 10. Breathe in. Breath out. Again, breathe in. Breathe out. Mr.s Sessler, I thnk you are,again, confusing two issues into one, again, thus another confusing SoapBox. Secondly, you've seem to have described "fanboy-ism" instead of changes made in games. You failed to describe the changes in the games and the effects of that change, not just for the gamer, but on the game itself, or even why. On Madden 11, EA has told everyone what "GameFlow" was and that was to speed up the game. If you wanted a quick game or was new, "GameFlow" is for you. if you want to play the "regular" way, you have that option. I don't know. I'm just a G4 Noob on the block.

    Posted: August 17, 2010 7:22 PM
  • SquallLionhart25

    im in complete diffrence with adam this one time. nothing changed in the game at all for me to spend another 60+ bucks. They really need to do a roster update download you can get for about 20 bucks, and any new cutscenes or whatever for the fraanchise modes. I'd pay for that instead of them saying we have a mode called ask madde....i mean gameflow. Its not new, its been in the game for years. EA Sports....FAIL.

    Posted: August 17, 2010 5:26 AM
  • FaerieFyre

    In games, change is a good thing. Just like the rest of life. I really don't know what the majority of opinions against such is so large. You're right, Adam. Most of the gaming community is under 40 and many didn't even have to deal with a lot of gaming's most memorably horrible moments: such as a multitude of hours playing Pong because most other games hadn't come out of the arcades, yet.

    However, I also have no idea what the drive is to sports games. Personally, I'm not a really big sports fan and have no desire to pick up a sports game for more than a few minutes. I don't think they're very intuitive or very well thought out. Most of the gameplay is monotonous and drawn out. However, I'm also not a guy. That may have something to do with it. I haven't really seen many women/girls playing sports games, but I'm almost certain there's a small minority out there. Do I condemn sports game fans as lesser gamers? Certainly not. They fill a niche market that's vast enough to have game companies producing more games all the time. We'll just never understand each other in conversation, that's all.

    About the changes to Cole for Infamous 2: I thought he was pretty hot! I think I remember a Feedback or something else on this topic where several of the women at G4 also agree with me. I'm sure there's many other female fans who also agree. I mean, he's got a shaved head, a little scruff on his chin, and he's lean muscular. Most women aren't big fans of the hugely muscular Mr. Universe kind of guys. I could be wrong, there. He's also well dressed. You want to appeal to the female demographic? Do more characters like THAT. Of course, I haven't been able to play Infamous due to the fact I'm too broke for a PS3. Maybe that has something to do with it? I dunno.

    Another good edition of Sessler's Soapbox. Thanks, Adam.

    Posted: August 17, 2010 2:18 AM
  • The_prince_of_canada

    personally, im happy they changed cole's look. I like it when the people have hair lol. I mean Mason from Red Faction had the same hair, and so did his brother. I thought of alot examples a few days ago, but i cant seem to remember them lol but change is good, as long as it makes it better

    Posted: August 16, 2010 9:37 PM
  • Dorby5826

    Dragon Age 2 that is coming out soon has been changed a little bit from the original, mainly the look of the charactors and the environment it has a more jagged look to it in my opinion, which to me is not a bad thing. Bioware is also changing the gameplay to the game to so the game can be more accessible to console gamers or anybody that is new to the series. I am looking forward to these changes and hope that the game can be even better than the original. In most cases I believe that change is good, although there have been times when it has made a game worse, but not all the time.

    Posted: August 16, 2010 9:27 PM
  • ColonelCampbell

    Good old Sessler. He has a really good point. IMO, the reason people didnt want to change Cole's character look, is cus they arent used to a character changing his looks. In any big sequel the guy looks the same, so you keep that sense of familiarity. However in the inFamous franchise, you have this rugged looking dude in the first game, to this sort of clean cut, well groomed kind guy, which goes out of the comfort zone for most people

    TL;dr, Gamers dont like change

    Posted: August 16, 2010 8:14 PM
  • HJC

    I find it funny how many game critics sit there and say that hardcore fans of game franchises are "afraid of change" but in reality they are afraid of their favorite games being dumbed down. The "changes" that takes place in established game franchises are more often than not the streamlining of certain game mechanics so the game is more appealing to casual gamers. Developers do this in order to try and sell more copies but in the scenario of Mass Effect it actually didn't help them at all. As of now Mass Effect 1 and 2's lifetime sales are 2.26 million and 1.9 million copies respectively and it doesn't look like Mass Effect 2 has any chance of catching up to the original. Mass Effect 1 had a more in-depth leveling up system and loot gathering system (which was still pretty casual-gamer friendly because all of the loot was automatically put into your inventory for you) which was completely streamlined to give the game more of a third-person shooter feel in the sequel.

    Not only did they streamline the leveling/loot systems, but the original game's only drivable vehicle was also completely removed and replaced with a simple planet mining system which was more boring than it was exciting. Players complained about the Mako (the drivable vehicle) from the original but they never said to take it out entirely. They just said to fix the driving mechanics.

    One of the best parts of the original game was the exploration of uncharted worlds which also involved the Mako. It was incredibly fun to explore the galaxy map and decide which planet you would land on next to explore and see if you could find any life or remains of other now extinct civilizations. It made the scale of the game feel like nothing else before, because there were literally dozens and dozens of PLANETS for you to explore. In the sequel they completely destroyed the fun of uncharted planets, turning it into an extremely linear experience where you land on a planet and walk from one shooting gallery to the next giving you almost no freedom to explore.

    So all of the game critics who aren't hardcore fans of certain games should never sit back and say change is good, because change is NOT ALWAYS good. If you're not a hardcore fan of a game then you don't see certain changes from the same perspective as people who are. In some circumstances change can actually be a very bad thing.

    Posted: August 16, 2010 2:00 PM
  • phantomzxro

    I agree with the that change is good but at the same time you will always get some people upset about change just because they are use to doing it the old way and in time they will get use to the new way. The new cole look was something different tho i felt that was on the same lines as when they replaced Darrin in bewitched or when they changed the formula in coke with new coke. Anything that is a 180 turn of what your expect will get people upset and if you don't have a good reason people will rage. I feel with cole he looked nothing liked who he was before to the point of he just could of been a different person.

    Posted: August 16, 2010 1:46 PM
  • uirukun13

    I believe it would be appropriate to discuss Pokemon Heart Gold and Soul Silver. Alot of people, I noticed, looked down at the game because it wasn't exactly 100% the original game to them (it was a remake afterall). What I don't understand is that these people want the exact same experience down to the pixel. To me, it just sounded like they wanted the exact game that they played which defeats the purpose of updating the game to current industry standards (hell why don't they get the original off of ebay or something?). Example, alot of people didn't like the music as much as the original. I say that the music has improved dramatically since the original. Would YOU want to be listening to 8 bit music when you could be listening to music featuring real instrumentals? The point is to evolve. Sure the original games were nostalgic, and the new games were hell sure nostalgic, but these "fans" need to understand that improvement is always a good thing and that it should always be striven for, even at the cost of the novelty of the original game

    Posted: August 15, 2010 9:34 PM
  • ninjamatt52

    As far as Cole goes, he is a comic book style superhero; the Cole design that got backlash didn't look like a comic book superhero, that is why it was a problem. I for one, my mind just wasn't able to accept it as being the same guy, he lost his comic book appeal for me.

    Posted: August 15, 2010 7:01 PM