Can a Series' Identity Limit its Potential to Grow?

[Mido]

For a long-running game series, the identity it fosters either from the onset or over a long period of time establishes how an audiences perceives the series. Through this perception, a series leaves behind a very specific impact among its audience. While this identity allows for a series to sustain itself for years to come, there also emerges the potential of this identity to become stale which forces games to attempt to evolve by either drastically changing its identity or making minor adjustments to it. Attempts to evolve are often risky endeavors with a notable consequence often emerging in the form of split fanbase, one side approving of the series' evolution and the other side clamoring for a return to the old ways if the attempts at evolving do not satisfy. Consequences such as the aforementioned split fanbase often force developers into the following crossroads: 1. The developers embrace their attempt to evolve a series. 2. The developers return the series to its previous identity. Both options risk alienating fans, but only one decision of the two can be made unless developers cleverly take a third route (with this forum poster looking to the Super Mario series as an example of third-option fun and games). Long-winded preface aside, what do you all think?

 

[thePlinko]

It depends on your definition of growing

Do you mean growing as in how large the game can get?

Growing as in how the series progresses relatively to the rest of the series?

Or growing as in how the series keeps up with the times?

I’m no game designer but I think it should be fairly easy to make a game grow size wise, at least in comparison to the other two. For the second one it seems that the longer a series runs, the harder it gets to make the series better. The Zelda series has had 19 main installments and it’s pretty safe to say that, at least for the last three titles, Nintendo has been struggling to keep the games original and fresh while also keeping in line with the rest of the series. It seems the last one is the one Nintendo is most focused on, as BotW is one of the most generic open world games out there, which would make sense because of the open world craze thats been going on for a while now.

Honestly if even Nintendo has a hard time with this then it most be hard.

 

[DarkestLink]

Not at all. An identity is what allows a series to grow. Imagine if the next Zelda was a RPG, and the one after that was an FPS, and then the next succeeding title was a Kart racer. This isn't growth, this is just directionless confusion. An identity gives a series direction and focus, it allows the developers to narrow down the areas that are already good and the areas that need work, thus allowing for the opportunity to grow. Without an identity, a series simply can't grow.

It’s most definitely a tricky thing for delvelopers to pick a path to bring their game down, because it could lead to more sales and it could lead to less sales

It's really not. Figuring out the direction and identity you want to take your series in should be settled by the second game. The hard part is constantly needing to outcompete yourself. When a game has an identity and sticks to it, fans should (rightfully) expect the newest game to surpass the previous ones as the developers have more experience, more feedback, and superior technology.

The appeal of gimmicks is that you don't need to compete at all. Put a gimmick in, throw some paint on it, and you're set. The gimmick doesn't even have to be original, so long as it's new to the series. And because it's new to the series, there are no standards to be judged by.

 

[Turo602]

Definitely not. I think a series' identity is often lost on the audience who want nothing but the same thing and even the developers when trying to stick to winning formulas for too long. A series must first establish its identity in order to build on, improve, and play with its formula. However, after much improvement and various gimmicks to keep the formula fresh, we can often end up either deviating too far from the series' original identity or simply rehashing the same thing with a new coat of paint until it starts to get stale.

To use Zelda as an example, the original presented us with ideas that would give the series its identity. However, when making the jump to 3D, the series had a brand new set of opportunities and limitations to work with while trying to keep up with the series' identity of exploration, adventure, and dungeon crawling. After a few generations, Nintendo was still working within those N64 limitations to craft Zelda games and while it was true to the series' identity, it was stuck inside the boundaries of old hardware design rather than embracing what made the series special to begin with. Enter Breath of the Wild. Rather than limiting themselves to the N64 philosophy of what a Zelda game is, they started from scratch and embraced their roots in ways that weren't possible back then. Was it perfect? No. But is it still keeping with the series' identity? Of course.

As @DarkestLink said, franchises need to have an identity in order to grow, but growth can be achieved in so many different ways while maintaining a consistent identity. Unfortunately, that potential isn't always reached for one reason or another, but sometimes, the best way to grow is to take a look back at what made a series work in the first place, and rethink all that progress that was made that eventually stagnated the franchise. Some recent examples of this include Breath of the Wild, God of War, Resident Evil 2, and now we're seeing that same philosophy take place with Halo: Infinite.