I’m still waiting for one bit of evidence from publishers or developers that making something a sequel more “accessible” or “streamlining” it has ever led to higher sales.
>
They assume that the new audience they are trying to reach read all the previews and news about a game, and know the difference whether the new game is more accessible than the last. But by definition the wider audience is not aware of all these things; they don’t haunt forums or visit websites every time a new bit of informaition is released. It couldn’t be because sequels benefit from the success, word of mouth, and the associated wider awareness of the previous game could it?
Ubisoft claimed Prince of Persia: Warrior Within sold more than Sands of Time because of the grimdark theme. But their attempt at edginess was laughed at across the board. So how could it have sold more when the audience rejected the one thing Ubisoft thought would widen the appeal? Maybe because its predecessor was a hit game, multiple GoTY winner, that players had to tell all their friends about who maybe borrowed it or played it on a rental and liked it so much they vowed to get any continuation; because of the increased marketing effort which broadens awareness.
Skyrim didn’t sell the numbers it did because they made the dungeons grossly linear, reduced the stats to three, or got rid of spell-making and other interesting features. It sold because of one of the biggest marketing blitzes I’ve ever seen in video games, off the popularity of Oblivion, the fact that its the fifth game in an already successful series, being released on 3 different platforms, having the media to go to bat for it, graphics etc. They could release a remake of Daggerfall, maybe the most complex and difficult game in the series, in 5 years with cutting edge graphics and the same marketing effort, and it would probably blow the doors off Skyrim. The mainstream gamers would love the bigger world, more character building options, more quests, more factions to join.
Sometimes a game becomes a cultural phenomenon, and as such, it attracts a lot of people who wouldn’t touch it otherwise but want to be part of the latest hot fad. You think everyone who jumped on the Halo or CoD bandwagon was a ‘gamer?’ Trust me, they weren’t, and maybe hadn’t even played a game before that. The Souls games will never be cultural phenomena, unless From Software is ready to spend the same amount of marketing dough and ‘court’ all the gaming sites. Ultima was a successful and highly influential RPG series, but I’d say that was more video game phenomenon than cultural phenomenon.
Another thing to consider: it’s easier to make something “more accessible,” to streamline or remove a feature rather than fix it. Designing mechanics is hard, calibrating difficulty is hard, balancing systems is hard. I suspect this is what’s is behind many developers making their games more “accessible.” It’s hard work to balance all the nuances of a deep game
P.S. This email wasn’t about DS2 or any game in particular. but I have to wonder why when people talk of widening an audience, they try to convince the hardcore fan that it is a good thing for them that more people will get to play it. Why would the hardcore fan care if a series continues if it’s going in a direction they don’t care for? Do you think the Fallout or Syndicate fans benefited from the new direction those series went in this generation? How about the Ultima fans when 9 came out?
Citing Ultima doesn’t help your case. Ultima 9 and 8 were EA games, not Origin games. Both games were launched too early and had outside people meddling into it (Ultima 9 had a Command and Conquer director. Really now).
Ultima did become more accessible over time. While Ultima II seems to be the abyss as far as the games go, Ultima III was far more accessible than II is. IV is more accessible than III. V is probably more accessible than IV. VI is MASSIVELY more accessible than the first five Ultima games. And VII is the most accessible of them all.
Each of the games practically re-invented itself. They all had new game engines.
You might say, “Changing things is risky.” I say doing the same things is the risky path. Accessible means people understand what they are doing.
What games have benefit from accessibility?
The entire Wii phenomenon was from accessibility of the controller.
Early in its success, Notch said part of the secret to Minecraft’s success was that he designed the game to be accessible.
Console games sell more than PC games because the console is more accessible especially to children.
Super Metroid was WAY more accessible than Metroid was. As was Link to the Past over the first two Zeldas.
However, there is an argument in your favor. The phenomenon you are looking for is with Defender. When Defender came out, no one thought it would sell because the game wasn’t designed to be accessible. For crying out loud, look at the controls!
Five buttons? And the joystick only did up and down. You had to press a button to move.
Yet, Defender sold very well in the arcades. An even tougher sequel, Stargate, was made.
No one wants all games to be the same things. All games being ‘accessible’ is boring. There definitely is appeal for these type of games. However, they can only exist on top a pyramid of already existing mass market. Defender could not sell in a vacuum. It needed games like Pac-Man and Space Invaders to build up the gamer population.
You could argue that Dark Souls is the Defender of our day. I like to argue that Metroid on the NES was the Defender of that time period. THAT was why people really got into Metroid and why Super Metroid didn’t sell too well (the game was just so easy).
But even as a ‘Defender’ type game, Dark Souls is still selling too low. Maybe making it harder could make it sell more. Maybe. But I’m not sure the company is willing to take a chance on that.