The Rule of Three
on July 1, 2014 at 8:00 am“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
That’s been a pretty common saying for a long time. I mean, it makes sense. Why tinker with something when you know what you have already works?
Well, usually because there is potential to make it better.
After all, if we didn’t constantly strive to change things, nothing would ever improve. So, I think that phrase has become a bit of an anachronism. I mean, even hammers have been improved over the years. If you can improve a tool as simple as that, then you can improve ANYTHING.
But, I think the video game industry takes this expression to heart. It’s practically the undisputed king of “Never Changing Anything”. In its outdated empire, it would rather leave something exactly the same for as long as it prints money, then throw it away the moment they get a paper jam. It sees “PC LOAD LETTER”, and immediately takes that money printer to a field and beats it with a baseball bat. It’s never a dignified death.
This kind of business isn’t good for gaming. It’s too short-sighted. Not only is it nothing but a quick cash-in for publishers, but it’s not good for gamers, either. They want to see games being released in their favorite franchises for decades, instead of fizzle out and die after a few years.
It’s only natural; keep pumping out the same game over and over and over again, and of course we’re going to become disinterested in it. The vast majority of us aren’t easily amused dudebros who buy “Call of Duty” every year. We’re more sophisticated than that… or just get bored easily. Okay, we just get bored easily.
That’s not our fault, though. It’s not like we’re all wracked with ADD and can’t focus on any franchise for too long. On the contrary, many gamers are fiercely loyal to franchises they enjoy. Loyal to a fault, really. This can cause publishers to think it’s okay to continue down the path of samey-ness. To kill the horse, beat it, go to sleep, wake up, then beat it some more.
Hey, that horse is dead. You know that, right?
“Yeah, but you’re still standing around watching. So, we figured…why not keep this party going?”
Let’s not pretend this is a new trend. They’ve been doing it since gaming began. Just on the NES alone, look how many “Mega Man” games Capcom managed to release. It was six! By the time they had developed that many, it must have been like trying to squeeze out that last bit of toothpaste.
“No no, there is still some left in here. I’m not ready to go to the store and pay $3 for another tube!”
This is why I fiercely believe in something I call “The Rule of Three”. The idea being that you are allowed to make something three times. You’ll improve upon its mechanics and design each time. Eventually, hopefully, your third entry will be the best… then you quit. If you’re going to continue the series, you need to make a radical change at that point. Mix it up!
Let’s look back at the “Mega Man” example. 4 through 6 were, obviously, exactly like the previous games in the series. You can tell the designers were getting bored; the games were less fun to play, as a result. They were no longer fresh or interesting, but felt formulaic and safe. It was just another “Mega Man”. 1 through 3, however, saw massive changes with each entry, finally reaching a point with the third entry, where it felt as good as it was going to get.
And, if you’re screaming, “THAT’S WHAT A SERIES IS! GAMES THAT ALL PLAY THE SAME,” at your computer screen right now, you’re wrong. Oh, so wrong.
I expect bands that I like to stay within the same genre of music, but I like for them to experiment with different sounds with each album. I look at a series of games the same way. If you’ve made a game that fits within the same genre, then whatever you do beyond that can be whatever you want it to be!
How about a “Mega Man” game where you don’t fight eight robot masters? Maybe one could’ve been non-linear, like “Metroid”. Or maybe one DOESN’T need the obligatory “Fight All Eight Bosses Again” feature at the end of the game. Perhaps you only fight six robot masters, but there are twenty available, and each stage has multiple exits, so each playthrough is different. You’ll get different bosses and different power-ups.
It’s pointlessly restrictive to limit yourself to a perceived way a series HAS to be designed. It stifles creativity and leads to obscurity and apathy. Even if the developers aren’t totally satisfied and think they can do better. Even if GAMERS aren’t totally satisfied, it’s better to leave things on a high note, then start looking at things from a different perspective. Make your changes while people are still having fun, before the creative slump kicks in and before players start complaining.
If people are crying for more, then the developers have done their job well. Let them continue to do their job by letting them be creative.
Why do I think this way, though? Why do I care?
It’s because I love seeing new ideas and concepts sprout up. Developers pigeonholing themselves into a single series that barely changes from entry to entry is incredibly frustrating to me. Of course, the fans of these games don’t help the issue. They continue to buy them year in and year out. This only causes the publishers to believe that this is the correct path. That NEVER changing is the only way to conduct business.
I hate that mentality.
You may think, “Oh, it’s not a big deal. If people are happy playing the same thing over and over, then let them!”
I hate that mentality, as well.
Maybe it’s because I just have too much love for gaming. Maybe it’s because I get excited about design and experiencing new ways to play. Maybe it’s because when I see games being more progressive and changing their identities, that I think the people making them are actually enjoying what they do. And that means they’re trying their damnedest to deliver experiences that are really going to blow gamers away.
While I agree with you on most points completely I kind of don’t like your example of innovating within Megaman. You don’t have to get rid of 8 bosses and boss rematch to make the game fresh. Look at Megaman X, it changed… Well, everything, while keeping boss selection mechanic and rebattle. There was intro stage and more story, completely different gameplay, Zero, everything. And it even didn’t get stale as fast as first Megaman.
Then they went for Zero(X was meant to end after 5th game if I recall, rest were just Capcom trying to squeeze money). That… I can’t even describe how different it was while keeping essentials the same. It was still 2D platformer and still had boss selection(though they made it into mission select in 1st game), different upgrade system, each game had different side weapons that changed up gameplay.
It got stale by 4th part, so they changed for ZX. That’s good. And Capcom cancelled it after 2nd game. You can’t say that ZX didn’t take chances, too bad Capcom didn’t. But hey, until the very end they kept boss rematch feature. Oh, and ZX was metroivania style, but locked you to certain area for the mission.
You can find creativity in many places. Keeping some staples, but experimenting with the rest isn’t bad. Square used name Cid in every FF since 4 or so, but experimented with everything else. Look at Mighty Number 9, you can tell it’s Megaman, but you can also tell a lot went into innovating. There’s for example that strange feature of dashing into defeated enemies. And it still keeps “choose one of 8 bosses”.
I kind of lost my point. I like traditions, and I like innovations. I feel like keeping true to what the series is while innovating is the perfect way to go. That’s also what SMT series did.
I should’ve clarified that I was only talking about the NES Mega Man games. That was my fault.
Capcom, for a time, actually did a really good job with spinning off the Mega Man franchise. Of course, once they did, they would then run THAT spin-off into the ground, but that’s just how Capcom rolls.
Still, they certainly came up with some brilliant series for the Blue Bomber that they never fully explored enough, like Command Mission and, of course, Mega Man Legends.
Anyways, the general point was that you don’t have to stick to a series staple, just because you think it HAS to be that way.
Konami started experimenting with Castlevania with the second entry, by making and explorable world. This continued with the third game, by making diverging paths and multiple playable characters.
It’s just when you release so many of the same thing in such short periods of time, it feels desperate to me. That’s generally what later entries in particular Mega Man series feel like, especially the Battle Network and Star Force series, sheesh.
Thanks for pointing that out, though. I’m always glad to help clarify when necessary.
I have to agree on the rule of three. But there are more than a few where the third has been the worst (Looking at you Dead Space 3). The problem with the rule though is, no one seems to get 3 right anymore. At least in the AAA market. The last 3 I saw that was any good was 10 years ago on the PS2, Burnout 3. And yet, I still wouldn’t consider that “Getting it right” as racing games tend to get better over time (Except Need For Speed seems to be getting worse since Most Wanted for the PS2). Hell, I’ll be surprised if another 3 is any good anytime soon. But I won’t hold my breath for it. I’ll stick to my rougelike’s and indie games for the time being if the AAA companies don’t start showing some promise in franchises. Although a few new IP’s are looking promising/
Well, as I mentioned in the article, EA is one of those magical companies that can ruin anything, at anytime.
Dead Space, unfortunately, was a great horror series that came along at a time when the bigwigs in the industry tricked themselves into believing horror games weren’t profitable. A time when you could only make money with big budget action.
Dead Space, for as good as it started out, was exploited by EA to be a mass-market, generic, sci-fi cover shooter; garnished with micro-transactions.
Things are looking up, though! This console generation is shaping up to be a FIERCE competition and the resulting games are looking more unique and varied. Lot’s of good stuff is coming and I, as I discuss in a previous article (Found here: http://legacy-control.com/control-freaks/nouveau-16-bit/ ) I think this is going to be a gen to remember.