Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

Where do you lean as a gamer?

Conservative - You tend to like sequels, high production values, refinement of established formulas. You want your favorite developers to make more of what made them great to begin with.

Progressive - You prefer new IP, creative/ambitious game design, innovation and risk taking. You want your favorite developers to make something completely different and move the medium forward.

 

[Grimchest]

I don’t fit into either since I’ll play and like most games. lol

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Conservative.

I'm happy with tried and true franchises and standard gameplay (gamepad or m/kb).

I'll play some quirky indies sometimes for cheap or on GP, but I rarely get as much enjoyment out of them as a big name game. And if I somehow paid $90 cdn ($101 with tax) for an indie game, it would make it worse. So being a GP game or $15 is right where I peg them.

And if the recent focus on GaaS, mtx and VR are the biggest splashes in new gameplay mechanics, forget it. I see no real improvements to gameplay unless people pony up more money than just buying a system and buying a game.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

I'm definitely a believer of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", when I find a formula I like, I wish devs would stick to it.

One example is Resident Evil 8, I'm loving the game but I do miss RE's old formula, I would be happy as a clam playing games like that today just with better graphics as opposed to something radically different like RE8.

Another example is the evolution of 3D Mario, I couldn't get into Galaxy because it was too different than 64 and Sunshine, but Super Mario Odyssey I lobed because while it was innovative in it's own way it was more clearly following the framework of 64 and Sunshine, which is what I liked best for 3D Mario.

I do think "innovation" is one of the most overrated buzzwords in gaming, I'm more of a refinement guy.

 

[AJUMP23]

What about if you just take some of both. I will play new and established stuff, I just want to play good games.

 

[worldwithpyramids]

This doesn’t feel like something we need to choose between. I want and appreciate both.

 

[Virt McPolygon]

Progressive. I like when people go for new things and ideas.

I'm not depressed or autistic, so I don't need constant reminders of the games/series I enjoyed from my childhood.

 

[Pejo]

I don't trust modern devs to do anything good with the games and series that I love. So I'd rather they try something new, and there's a chance I might like it.

 

[BadBurger]

WhyNotBoth.gif, seriously. I love both, new and old, pioneering and established.

 

[kunonabi]

Considering my two favorite consoles are the Dreamcast and Wii I suppose I'm in the progressive camp.

 

[Punished Miku]

Progressive for sure. When I was growing up, every new game was in the arcade. It not only had different gameplay but also entirely different hardware and physical control schemes as well. No sequels were ever accepted unless it was a substantial departure from the previous game.

 

[Kilau]

Whatever’s on Gamepass

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Arizona is about to call it for the Progressive camp.

 

[Thabass]

I do both. I can play my favorites and hanker for some old-school fun. I'm not bound to one game. If I see a game that intrigues me, I play it.

But, if I were to choose a camp, I'd be conservative.

 

[Danjin44]

I don't know which camp I would fall in to since I like both new IP and sequels.

 

[nightmare-slain]

why not both?

 

[GymWolf]

Both.

 

[Jigsaah]

I would be more of a progressive gamer. Innovation excites me more than anything in gaming. I'm one of those guys who watch Sword Art Online and wish I could be alive when that becomes a reality.

I do like a good sequel though. Souls kinda says it all.

 

[Handel]

I lean towards progressive, especially those that bridge the gap between gameplay and story like Ueda's titles. More of a good thing can work for me, as long as the core loop is solid, with enough changes to differentiate from contemporaries.

Sequels=conservative, new IP=progressive isn't a certainty, it's a case by case basis. There are sequels that innovate and change up the formula, and new IPs that are just other popular games with a new coat of paint. Resident Evil has reinvented itself and innovated within both the horror and TPS genres, as one of the best examples. Zelda also innovates a lot, with large changes in tone, artstyle, and gameplay between mainline 3D entries with TP being the exception as it was meant to please those crying for more OOT.

 

[DeepSpace5D]

I would put myself squarely in the middle. I’ll play anything if it’s good.

 

[Fare thee well]

Progressive, 100%. I wish everything could be a risk or a new take. Sadly it feels like we have had the complete opposite for 15 years now.

 

[Raven117]

Both are great, but when I look at my favorite games and “experiences” it’s Almost always progressive.

 

[SSfox]

Both must coexists.

 

[Lionel Richie]

I like Nintendo, I'm a gentleman of refined taste.

 

[existensmaximum]

75% conservative, 25% progressive. I mean, both are important? However it's easier to fail when trying to create something progressive, and I certainly wouldn't want to play only that kind of stuff. Conservative games on the other hand tend to get kinda bland and uninspired sometimes, and could often benefit from having a much better story or presentation.

 

[German Hops]

I'm in camp Lo

 

[ReBurn]

These options make no sense. New genres and gameplay mechanics don't really happen much any more. Developers usually only do safe.

I play what I like. That's the camp I fall into.

 

[lh032]

none.

I play good games.

 

[farmerboy]

I'm conservatively progressive.

I want new IPs, but established studio's to make them.

 

[DelireMan7]

I like games. Sequel or new ip. Stick to formula or new gameplay mechanics.
Anything can be good for me.

 

[eyesabitdull]

Why do we need to choose one over the other?

I fucking love it when I play relatively obscure games on PC that are really good, but also love them more when they get sequels.

I also love big blockbuster games, and I do look forward to sequels that may improve on their original world and idea.

Its dumb to play a game that was so good and say "they cant do better" and not want a sequel because you want something fresh and new once again.

Sequels can bring fresh ideas, it's just a matter of how open minded you can be on how much experimentation a sequel to a successful game can be.

 

[nkarafo]

When it comes to sequels: Conservative. I don't care about changing the formula of a successful franchise. Most of the time it turns into shit. Like OtherM, or how Resident Evil turning into some dumb action games.

Everything else: Progressive. As long as it's a new IP, i prefer to see something new.

 

[skakmk]

I prefer developers to be conservative with respect to stories/themes of our beloved franchises and make progress when it comes to design and tech.

 

[xrnzaaas]

I would say a little bit of both with the conservative side being usually stronger. I don't like drastic changes in sequels of established IP's, but it doesn't prevent me from playing them and in some cases I end up liking the changes.

I like trying out new IP's, but I don't try too many games with unusual approaches to gameplay or storytelling. Again - in some cases I still play them and change my mind about them.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

There's a special place in hell for the people who respond to a hypothetical by not agreeing to the concept of said hypothetical. Right next to Ted Bundy.

"If you were forced to choose..."

"Both" was not given as an option for a reason.

 

[Sander Cohen]

Progressive, I like trying new and different stuff.

 

[Daymos]

I hate both. That way no matter what game is currently being hated I always have lots of people to talk to.

 

[dcx4610]

Progressive. I've been playing games since the 2600/NES. I live for new, unique experiences and IPs, Games like Limbo, Inside, Sundered, Shadows of the Colossus. Even games like Cyber Shadow is unique to me. It might look like a retro 2D platformer but the gameplay, story and music all come together to make something new. They could have easily taken an old game like Shadow of the Ninja or Ninja Warriors and just called it "Shadow of the Ninja 2" to cash in on the 10 people that have nostalgia for it. But no, they made a new IP and I appreciate that.

I already mentioned it in the Village thread by why in the world is it called Resident Evil Village? Just call it Village and have a new franchise. When you completely change a game to first person and only have mild connections to a franchise, MAKE NEW IPSs. It's so lazy and frustrating.

 

[sublimit]

Mixed

 

[Derktron]

I like new ideas, now I do like established games though. It's a mix of both.

 

[Rat Rage]

Why does it have to bei either, or? I like variety. I like to have established formulas; I like to have different types of genres; I like them to be distinct; I also like innovation and new ideas. I'm not a gaming autist, who just likes to play one type of game or can only enjoy a very limited number of types of games. I'm a gaming connoisseur. I like all kinds of (gaming) flavours, as long as they all have their own, distinct taste.

 

[TGO]

I like new IP and new stuff that take risks but I don't like when established IPs do it and erase established formulas that work better then the new & risky formulas

 

[skit_data]

I voted progressive but thinking more about it I’m probably more of a mix. I don’t deem sequels necessary but I like when developers use similar concepts but evolving them in new iterations and I prefer them to experiment when it comes to setting.

The perfect example would be

Demon’s Souls -> Dark Souls -> Bloodborne -> Sekiro

 

[TheGreatMusashi]

Progressive, over the years I’ve been feeling sequel fatigue pretty hard and a lot of the new AAA releases seem too familiar to one another. Returnal looks interesting to me though, like the idea of a big budget roguelike. It’s just always good to see big budget take chances even with an established genre.

 

[JeremyEtcetera]

I don’t fit into either since I’ll play and like most games. lol

This doesn’t feel like something we need to choose between. I want and appreciate both.

Progressive. I like when people go for new things and ideas.

I'm not depressed or autistic, so I don't need constant reminders of the games/series I enjoyed from my childhood.

WhyNotBoth.gif, seriously. I love both, new and old, pioneering and established.

Both.

I would put myself squarely in the middle. I’ll play anything if it’s good.

Both must coexists.

I like games. Sequel or new ip. Stick to formula or new gameplay mechanics.
Anything can be good for me.

Why do we need to choose one over the other?

Mixed

OP too scared to add the 'centrist' option.

I hate both. That way no matter what game is currently being hated I always have lots of people to talk to.

And this is the anarchist option.

 

[Mr Hyde]

A mix of both, I would say. I'm all for the true and tried, sequels with improved mechanics flashier graphics and such, but I don't mind risk taking and new IPs either. I just love good games, that's all.

 

[mortal]

I don't fall into either camp. There is a need and plenty of room for both approaches in this industry, assuming the developers have what it takes.
Not sure why it's being framed as an either-or issue.

 

[FreedomOfSpeech]

Silly false dilemma.

Play cool stuff.

 

[bender]

The panty dropper camp.

 

[nemiroff]

I just play games - And simulators. I'm in that camp.