> 2533274819302824;6133:
> > 2533274895603860;6070:
> > And you know, no matter how many people misuse it or call it a buzzword, it doesn’t change the definition of “evolve”, so I’m also not sure where you’re going with that.
>
>
> I have nothing else to comment on, except for this point here.
>
> Evolve, as a word, has a definition. The word itself is misused and makes no sense in the context people typically use it in. People may as well be saying -Yoink- like “game mechanics need to be gelatinous”. We all know what the word gelatinous means outside of that context, but what the -Yoink- does it mean in the context of that statement? The entire statement is vague and confusing.
>
> “Games need to Evolve”.
>
> Well, how does the dictionary define evolve (I ask how the dictionary defines it because it’s the closest thing to objectivity we can achieve here)?
>
> I’ll allow you to use any dictionary you want, but Websters defines it as such:
>
> -to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state : to develop by a process of evolution
>
> I think we can all agree games should become better and more advanced. I think we’d disagree on what makes games better, or why it has to be a slow process. Regardless, by basically saying “games need to become better” you’re not actually saying anything that possesses any significant meaning, you’re just stating the obvious. But people will follow you anyways because you’re stating the obvious in a way that sounds fancy. I.e., a buzzword; a word used to impress idiots that has no significant meaning behind it.
> . Or perhaps more accurately, a buzz phrase..
> .
> What about “more complex”? Games becoming more complex is typically viewed as a bad thing. You generally want to achieve as much depth as possible from as little complexity as possible. You don’t want to confuse your audience through unnecessary complications.
>
> “But that’s not what I meant when I used the word evolve”
>
> Okay, so how am I supposed to know what subjective definition you’re using in the context of your statement if you don’t actually elaborate on that statement?
Well then, took you long enough. I’ll try to break this down from both a marketing standpoint (what a games needs to do to become more popular and make the most money), and a personal standpoint (what a game needs to do so you’ll enjoy it more). The latter is particularly subjective, so I’ll be fair in that regard.
Like you said, evolve is a series of gradual changes, usually but not always (different definitions have slightly different versions of “usually” or “always”) from something simple to a more complex state. Let’s look at the first three Halo games. Throughout the trilogy they got inarguably more complex (Halo 2 added dual-wielding and more weapons; Halo 3 added even more weapons and equipment), and yet the sales kept going on. Therefore, we can deduce that it’s possible for a series to “evolve” into games of greater complexity and still be very popular and accepting among its fans. This is the good kind of “evolve”, the type Bungie themselves would say it’s necessary. Now let’s look at the more subjective side of things.
I know CE is your favourite Halo game, it’s also the simplest in terms of gameplay, but pays off with more depth than most shooters I know. There’s an evident correlation with depth and complexity: the former is dependant on the latter, that’s to say, without complexity there wouldn’t be depth. Let me explain: complexity is the amount of different variable present within the medium, depth is how many choices you can do on the most practical level with as few variables as possible. If you have no complexity (i.e. no variables to work with), you can’t have depth. About the correlation part:
Depth is finite, but that’s okay since it’s logically impossible for something to be infinite. So if you have a super deep game, you wish to make an even deeper sequel but are unable to with the base variables, you need to add more of them, or add more complexity, to achieve further depth. For example: game X has 10 variable, each with 5 options, and you want to make a sequel (call it game Y) with even more depth. This time game Y has 20 variables, and because of that, you can overlap them and create even more options, such as 10 options for each variable instead of game X’s 5 option limit. So game Y is deeper than game X because it’s more complex.
So when I say a game series needs to “evolve”, I’m not trying to use buzzwords to sound smart or anything, I’m actually referring to depth, more so than anything else. Do people misuse the word and not explain themselves properly? Fine. That’s not my problem, and you shouldn’t use it as an excuse for folks who have legitimate reasons as to why a game needs to evolve.
It’s actually kind of ironic: the Halo franchise to properly evolve is exactly what you want (for them to improve upon themselves and get better), but because your favourite Halo game is the least complex, you’ve led yourself to believe that complexity isn’t all that important, when in fact it’s fuel for depth. Not that I’m complaining, nor am I really criticizing you, I’m just using a fair bit of informal logic to show why saying “a game series needs to evolve” makes perfect sense, at least in my eyes.