Do you prefer iteration or innovation in video games

[Locke087]

So I just had this thought and wondered what do you generally prefer, with all the discussion about the new FE game and about what echoes should or shouldn't have done I got to thinking about whether or not people prefer sequels to games be innovative or iterative.

Just to clarify what I mean in case you don't know, innovative sequels are games like Breath of the Wild, Super Mario Odyssey (from what we know about it right now) and Genealogy a Holy War, games are willing to abandon a lot the past conventions (or just recent conventions) and try something new and different, and then mix things up to create an entirely new experience.

Iterative sequels are games like Fates,  Assassins Creed, most Shooter Sequels, and Super Mario 3D Land these games concentrate on greater refined experience of what they established in the last game further improving upon what's already built instead of providing something that's entirely new.

Me personally I prefer games be more innovative then iterative I actually tend to put a high value on innovation, I love this type of game even though often times they're not very polished. Because most the time I will take something that is surprising and new to me over something that is highly polished. That being said I do love many iterative games Blazing Blade/Sword is very much iterative of Binding Blade and I love it's my favorite FE game, but generally I prefer games that are more innovative.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Locke087

[Etrurian emperor]

It depends on my mood and on the timeframe the game is released in.

If a game is great then it makes sense for the sequel to follow that game's example while ironing out any kinks it has. A franchise can do this a couple of times and eventually you get some very polished and potentially great games, in theory at least. But once you had a couple of those games its time to get back to the drawing board and give us something new. 

Iterate a couple of times but be sure to innovate before things get stale. 

But I do respect games that innovate more and am willing to give them a pass on a lot of things. 

[Magical Glace]

It honestly depends.

Dragon Quest games really don't change much over time, for instance, there are improvements, additions and changes to the series' core system with each installment but the system is very similar between games and has never changed drastically.  I like how consistent the series is, pretty much every game in the series I've played sans the first (which I mainly disliked due to the extreme simplicity caused by having only one party member the whole game) has been thoroughly enjoyable to me.  

Then there's things like Breath of the Wild, which I also enjoyed despite being different from what I expect of the series, BotW may not be my favorite Zelda or even in my top five for the series, but I still really enjoy it and would recommend the game.

On the other hand, changes can be bad too.  I didn't like, for instance, the decreased emphasis on dungeons in BotW, finding the Divine Beasts too short for there being only four of them.  If the dungeons had been as good as MM's, I wouldn't mind having only four, but that just wasn't the case and I didn't like that.

So basically, something in between is my answer.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I think gamers have conflicting views on how much must change for a game to be "innovative". This industry has extremely positive connotations for the word "innovative" so the opposite must be totally bad. Dark Souls is a darling franchise, but all three games are iterative of Demon's Souls. That's a hard truth to swallow, because they're all great games. Meanwhile, some innovative games just aren't very well received. For example, Final Fantasy 13 is pretty innovative. You don't really play as the characters, you watch them do their best and tell them when to switch tactics. You can enter commands manually for the lead character, but that takes precious time so your choices better count. This gameplay style coupled with the huge emphasis on cutscenes and story make for a game in which 95% of what you do feels like watching the game play itself.

As a consumer, I'll want to know if my time and money will be worth it for the new game. So I'll say iterative. "Something in between" feels too diplomatic of an answer. I've definitely chosen not to buy games that are different in ways I find disagreeable. Yes, the industry needs innovation to avoid stagnation, but innovation can be the exact reason fans don't receive a game very well. Banjo & Kazooie Nuts and Bolts adding vehicle craft, Star Fox Zero adding forced motion controls, Fallout 4 placing emphasis on building settlements, etc.

[Azure Sen]

Iteration, I guess, but only because innovation related to gaming has become one of those concepts that's so mis- and overused that it doesn't even seem like a real thing anymore, just a vaguely word-shaped pile of nonsense. Kinda like iconic, actually.

I'm only half joking. "Innovation" as a concept has become basically meaningless thanks to the industry turning it into a buzzword that frequently doesn't actually apply to the game in question. When a company touts a game as innovative these days, one of two things goes through my mind: they're full of crap, or it'll be an unmitigated disaster because it was innovative, but not in a good way.

Edited June 27, 2017 by AzureSen

[Slumber]

Something in between.

I want original ideas, and then if those ideas are good enough, I want iteration to polish and flesh out the formulas while continuing to add fresh ideas. Very few of my favorite games are firsts in innovative franchises. My favorite Resident Evil game is REmake, which is about as derivative as you could get. My favorite Metal Gear Solid game is MGS3, which builds on MGS2 which built on MGS1. My favorite Dragon Quest game is Dragon Quest 7. My favorite Final Fantasy is 9. The only exceptions I can think of when I think of my favorite games are Psychonauts and Mass Effect, and even those aren't wholly original ideas, but they bring enough new to the table to make them stand out.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Slumber

[Zera]

Many of the greatest games (I'd wager at least 50%) are 50% iteration, 50% innovation. Here are some examples, from Metacritic!

Zelda: Ocarina of Time - Iterates Zelda, innovates by bringing it (and the action-adventure genre) to 3D.
Super Mario Galaxy - Iterates 3D Mario, innovates by adding wacky gravity.
Metroid Prime - Iterates Super Metroid, innovates by bringing it to a first person perspective.
Pac-Man CE DX - Iterates classic Pac-Man, innovates by cranking it up to eleven.
Okami - Iterates 3D Zelda, innovates with Celestial Brush mechanic and unique presentation.
Paper Mario - Iterates classic RPGs, innovates by simplifying numbers and removing most of the bullsh**.
F-Zero GX - Iterates F-Zero gameplay, innovates by being stupidly fast and slick (and hard).
Ikaruga - Iterates vertical shmups, innovates with polarity mechanic.
Sin & Punishment: Star Successor - Iterates Sin & Punishment, innovates by being perfect.

Of course there are many exceptions. Twilight Princess is mostly iterative and Portal is mostly innovative, but both are still excellent games.