If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.
I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.
Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.
Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.
First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).
MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!
Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.
Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.
Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.
Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.
EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.
Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.
No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.
This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.
Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.
(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?
I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
I dunno... Looking at Overwatch I cant point to one particular element that makes it extraordinary (maybe how it handles objectives?). I was watching a comparison between it and Team Fortress 2 and occasionally had trouble distinguishing between the footage.
Overwatch definitely follows trends, but its the quality and some of the minor design choices that allow it to be so stand out despite being so derivative.
You're mistaking something existing as a trend. Just because another game did something doesn't make it a trend.
Isnt that what a trend is in so many words
Nope.
Well every buisness class ive ever been in it was explained in that way. EMO is a trend right? Everyone having to go out and buy the new iphone that comes out every 6 months, thats a trend or other phone companies making a similar phone, its part of the trend. Someone or something does something or creates something and then everyone has to have it or do it or experience it, then someone takes that trend then adds on to it, it may not be right away, it could be 30 years after a trend dies like with fashion, and then someone opens up their closet and can still fit into their bell bottom jeans and starts wearing them again and people see it, could be friends that see it or family or perfect strangers see it and break out their jeans. Then some dude that works for a clothes company sees it while hes walking down the street, goes home , draws up some ideas and takes it to work and shows his boss, the boss likes it and orders a limited run on a new line of bell bottom jeans in a local market, it does well, people wear them and the clothes company take the line national then to other countries and there it is, the new trend, new way to look cool is to wear these jeans. Everyone is wearing them, now it may be popular for 5 years and then die down again, but a trend is a trend and isnt limited to 1 or 2 markets, just about everything started out as a trend. There is probably better examples such as music and so on. Is that to hard t understand? Shall i try again with a smaller more simple explanation? Tho what i said is pretty simple
