Or alternatively. Because one game being the current favorite, other games not like that one don't matter?
Before I begin this has nothing to with Demon's Souls / Dark Souls. Folks reading the title and ignoring the OP will probably immediately jump to this conclusion, but I'm encompassing all games in particularly. It's the issue of game B needing to be like game A to be "relevant" or whatever that supposed to mean, despite the fact game B has been consistent and still successful in it's style all this time and just pushing change for the sake of change at a detriment to an established formula.
PLEASE READ THE OP
With the most recent announcement of MK11, we go back to the issue of people wanting to do away with the block button and change the game to be closer to other fighting games. The problem with this is this disregards the existence of moves that have auto tracking properties, such as the teleports which are ambiguous in their nature that holding a specific direction for defense would negate their intended purpose since main point of these teleport attacks is they almost always cross up hitting the opposite direction the opponent is facing. Holding back to block would mean literally walking into these moves. In this specific example teleport attacks would need to be removed or significantly altered in how they function to accommodate such a change which would make the game no longer play like it's intended design.
Another example of Metroidvania platformers that have distinctly feel in their controls and mechanics. Hollow Knight does not play the same as Dead Cells, nor does Chasm or Iconoclasts either, but there is the blanket statement that makes the assumption that Metroidvania games have a "one size fits all" approach to level design, combat, and progression.
Like during the discussions when Bloodstained crops up which inspirations clearly are worn on it's sleeve in adopting the formula that Symphony of the Night has in terms of controls and feel for character movement, the biggest difference is the art direction. The backer demos play very closely to how SOTN does, and the initial pitch for the game was to provide another game that plays like it, and thus far mechanically and in terms of gameplay / control this is essentially what is happening, although the art direction certainly leaves something to be desired. Yet I've come across statements that follow along the lines that Hollow Knight existing implies there isn't a place for Bloodstained despite the fact that IGA's specific style of Metroidvania does not have the same progression process, stylistic direction or formula.
Just the same Chasm and Dead Cells both have procedurally generated maps but they couldn't possibly be similar especially with Dead Cell having more of a rogue-like approach, and Chasm being more of constant map design despite the initial map generation happening at the beginning of a new game and the map remaining a constant for the entire duration for that save file.
I suppose another example would be the case of long standing RPG series in the case for the Final Fantasy series. There is this ongoing sentiment that turned based mechanics are deemed "archaic" in place for more Action oriented systems yet the fact you have series like Ys and Dragon Slayer which are just as old and some cases older than turned based RPG genre established in the late 80's. This also flies in face of folks saying a major AAA developed game would not be successful if it had turned based mechanics yet falls contrary to this statement with the cases of games like Dragon Quest XI and Persona 5.
Now mind you I am not against games trying new ideas, incorporating new mechanics. and making gradual improvements, but complete shifts into a different genre, mass overhauls of consistent and proven formula being changed up in extremes that fly in the face of consistency seems to be the issue in this case and I don't understand why some want these sorts of things?
Before I begin this has nothing to with Demon's Souls / Dark Souls. Folks reading the title and ignoring the OP will probably immediately jump to this conclusion, but I'm encompassing all games in particularly. It's the issue of game B needing to be like game A to be "relevant" or whatever that supposed to mean, despite the fact game B has been consistent and still successful in it's style all this time and just pushing change for the sake of change at a detriment to an established formula.
PLEASE READ THE OP
With the most recent announcement of MK11, we go back to the issue of people wanting to do away with the block button and change the game to be closer to other fighting games. The problem with this is this disregards the existence of moves that have auto tracking properties, such as the teleports which are ambiguous in their nature that holding a specific direction for defense would negate their intended purpose since main point of these teleport attacks is they almost always cross up hitting the opposite direction the opponent is facing. Holding back to block would mean literally walking into these moves. In this specific example teleport attacks would need to be removed or significantly altered in how they function to accommodate such a change which would make the game no longer play like it's intended design.
Another example of Metroidvania platformers that have distinctly feel in their controls and mechanics. Hollow Knight does not play the same as Dead Cells, nor does Chasm or Iconoclasts either, but there is the blanket statement that makes the assumption that Metroidvania games have a "one size fits all" approach to level design, combat, and progression.
Like during the discussions when Bloodstained crops up which inspirations clearly are worn on it's sleeve in adopting the formula that Symphony of the Night has in terms of controls and feel for character movement, the biggest difference is the art direction. The backer demos play very closely to how SOTN does, and the initial pitch for the game was to provide another game that plays like it, and thus far mechanically and in terms of gameplay / control this is essentially what is happening, although the art direction certainly leaves something to be desired. Yet I've come across statements that follow along the lines that Hollow Knight existing implies there isn't a place for Bloodstained despite the fact that IGA's specific style of Metroidvania does not have the same progression process, stylistic direction or formula.
Just the same Chasm and Dead Cells both have procedurally generated maps but they couldn't possibly be similar especially with Dead Cell having more of a rogue-like approach, and Chasm being more of constant map design despite the initial map generation happening at the beginning of a new game and the map remaining a constant for the entire duration for that save file.
I suppose another example would be the case of long standing RPG series in the case for the Final Fantasy series. There is this ongoing sentiment that turned based mechanics are deemed "archaic" in place for more Action oriented systems yet the fact you have series like Ys and Dragon Slayer which are just as old and some cases older than turned based RPG genre established in the late 80's. This also flies in face of folks saying a major AAA developed game would not be successful if it had turned based mechanics yet falls contrary to this statement with the cases of games like Dragon Quest XI and Persona 5.
Now mind you I am not against games trying new ideas, incorporating new mechanics. and making gradual improvements, but complete shifts into a different genre, mass overhauls of consistent and proven formula being changed up in extremes that fly in the face of consistency seems to be the issue in this case and I don't understand why some want these sorts of things?
