Topic: Why Do Rehashes Sell?

But sass aside, I agree "more of the same" is what people want. The proof is in the sales. Nobody held these people at gunpoint to buy these games. They did it because they enjoy it. You may be able to argue certain games sell solely out of "hype" but most of those are either sequels to games people enjoyed, or new IPs that could only really sell with some good marketing behind it.

People just want more of what they already enjoy, and when they know it's a quality product, they will be willing to put up the cash to get it.

IE: COD, Mario, Etc.

Man, where were you for the entire 90s.

I miss Westwood Studios. =/

I didn't have a computer until 2007. :/

After I was a SNES guy, but before I was a PS1 guy, games like Red Alert, Starcraft, and Age of Empires II were all my jam. Those three and Nox and Diablo II took up pretty much all my free time in middle school. Damn, now I'm getting nostalgic.

Quality and uniqueness aren't mutually exclusive. You can have a good game that is also unique (Mario Galaxy is a good example). But regardless of quality it seems that similar games outsell unique ones, which doesn't make sense.

If a sequel doesn't toss out the series entire core gameplay it's always called a rehash.
proof is call of duty.
It does what a sequel should do. It adds new game mechanics every game and rarely drops game mechanics fans liked.
meanwhile zelda constantly ditches gameplay mechanics fans like in favor of the new flavor of the month mechanic.

I'm convinced I already read in this exact paragraph thread with the exact same wording, but I'm not in the mood to check...

that part was a qoute.

Oh...couldn't have used a quote button? Or at least wrapped it in quote tags? Or Italicized it? Or used quotation marks?

This is so horribly black and white it's not even funny. A rehash isn't simply a game that reuses the same formula, it's a game that doesn't add anything onto it. You can have a sequel that isn't a rehash by adding something new to the formula.

Also, how entitled do you have to be to think that ditching gameplay mechanics automatically makes a game bad? Sure it would be nice to have a game that contains the best of everything, but would you really refuse to buy a game just because it doesn't fulfill your every desire? Even if it includes a new feature that you might actually like better? That's completely ridiculous, you need to look at the bigger picture and evaluate whether or not the game as a whole is enjoyable.

And in fact, you're actually better off if each game has a unique experience. Because if each game simply built off the last, then what's the point in buying more than one game? The next game makes the previous one obsolete, and you may as well just wait until the final game and buy that. But if every game has some kind of unique draw, then you have reason to buy it and can enjoy multiple games in the series.

It's more that by aiming for the middle ground you can't make a game truly special.
If I want a unique game I wouldn't buy a sequel. That's like if I walk in to pizza hut and demand they make me a steak.

rehashes are like pizza. they are all pizza at the core but the toppings make a difference. It really angers me when a game developer makes a game that is NOTHING like the rest of the series. and uses the brand name to sell copies (kirby epic yarn)

To me THAT is lazier then rehashing. If you want t make a NEW idea fine,but make that new idea A NEW IP. Like splatoon.

That's actually a perfect example, and I agree that when I go into a series, I tend to expect a certain level of familiarity. I know there's something to be said for series that always offer something new and different, but I wouldn't expect most people to really take to those kinds of series. It increases the sense of risk for both the developer and the consumer. The only series where I can say every entry offered something new that I actually appreciate is SMT, and even then, there are tons of connecting elements between them, and I have my favorites and least favorites, most of which are the ones that changed too many things. Okay, I also love every Star Fox and Sonic most Sonic games, but I'm not gonna pretend either of those are normal levels of appreciation.

I really enjoy it when a series tries to be something completely different. Probably the reason why Star Fox Assault and Command are my two favorite Star Fox games.

Because lots of gamers don't want innovation.They want better graphics for their repetitive shooting or action games.

It seems to me that you have no sense of middle ground in the first place. Your analogy is again very black and white and entitled, to you if they don't do everything exactly the way you want it, it's garbage. You ignore the possibility of having different toppings and simply group everything as either pizza or steak.

As for Kirby's Epic Yarn, it's a spinoff. It's supposed to be completely different, that's the entire point. They take an existing character and use it do something new. Nintendo doesn't do new IPs unless it's something completely unrelated to existing ones, they're not just going to add new IPs just to fill some quota for new ideas, it needs to bring something new to the table.

It's a good analogy, actually. Every Pizza is different to those with discerning tastes, but to most people, Pizza is pizza. In this case, you're in the group that wants a different pizza every time they order, but most people just order the same topping(s) (or few sets of toppings) every time. Most tend to frequent the same pizza shop, too, expecting a similar pizza. Why do they do this? Because when they order Pizza, they're looking for a specific type of flavor, and that pizza is the one they can most easily pick out.

To tie this into video games, most people have a multitude of other activities besides gaming, but when they play games, it's usually because they're looking for something specific, with those familiar series being the experiences they can most easily pick out. Thus people gravitate towards what's familiar. It's easy, it's reliable, and it's a safe bet when it comes to your entertainment. You may as well be asking why people like sitcoms so much when every episode follows the same formula. It's the same thing, people know what to expect, so they know they can enjoy it - they don't always, but it's more likely than if they found a different show to watch.

Now for me, gaming is my main hobby, so I've had to diversify it over the years. I also have a large backlog, so at least for a while I chose to give new and unique games the priority. However, now that I'm to the point where I don't sell games, I tend to give safe bets the priority and pick up the unique stuff after the reviews have come in. The sequels are usually the safest bets, especially the ones that don't change much. It's just too much effort trying to research every game to make sure my money is well-spent. If a hardcore gamer finds it tiring, I can only imagine how a more casual fan of games must feel about it...must be exasperating...

I swear to god Alpha Centauri had to have consumed an entire year of my youth.

While I missed the 90's, I did get really into RTSes by 2009. C&C3 alone probably lasted me half a year. Then KOF lasted me the other half...