What makes devs remove functionality from subsequent games in series?

[StaceyPowers]

What makes devs remove functionality from subsequent games in series? To give two examples:

• ES Oblivion lets you do custom spells and has tons of conjuration options. Both of these features are gone in Skyrim.
• In DA: Inquisition, you have way less control over combat than you did back in Origins.

 Why do series backtrack on things that were clearly good?

 

 

[Justin11]

Maybe they want to reintroduce it in the games sequels, that's just a way to milk more money from their games. It was normal in EA FIFA editions, EA keeps removing its core features just to make the game so poor, reintroduce some old features in it's sequel, to make gamers think the game has plenty to offer. 

[Withywarlock]

I'll preface this by saying you've listed two so-called AAA games, so naturally their focus is going to be on streamlining to expand their userbase, rather than enhancing it (and why bother? As Justin above me says, people will pay for it after the fact - see Civilization, or any Paradox/Slitherine game for further examples.)

In answer to the first game, put yourself in the dev's shoes: does custom magic work for The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim? What's the use of combining spell effects when you can cast two seperately and conserve Magicka? Rather than provide solutions via custom spells, they instead just provided enough spells for every eventuality, which are far and few between. Don't get me wrong, custom magic is awesome and practically broken in the player's favour in III: Morrowind, but I imagine the devs found it easier to just make a compact spell list they know is going to work, and some spells that may come in handy once in the entirety of the player's time spent with the game. Plus there's modders, which is the same reason why Blizzard doesn't do much with its UI: addons do everything without the devs needing to bog down their already volatile code.

Dragon Age: Inquisition's reasoning is far more obvious to me: streamlining, or 'dumbing down'. BioWare/EA don't want to make a challenging tactical combat game, they want to make a game that will attract the most people. If that means removing the parts that make people's brains hurt like tactics and positioning, they'll do it in a pinch. Ironically, going away from the d20 system of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic has made the games all the harder to number-crunch.

Sometimes it's just culling the chaff: do we need all this additional guff slowing down the game? There's some cases where the guff is the charm such as in World of Warcraft. The Kanrethad Ebonlocke questline (AKA Warlock Green Fire) was the perfect example of class design: using all of a class' spell loadout including spells that don't get much use, like minor teleportation and certain summons. It could not be completed by simply equipping better gear, but instead it tested knowledge and logical applications for your abilities. Blizzard didn't like the idea of doing that for every class though, and decided to scrap it to make the class easier for everyone to understand (read: do more damage).

The good news is that those who want those features back are getting them in other games. They're not as well known, marketed, or even developed, but the old adage of 'if you build it, they will come' applies. CRPGs and strategy games especially are the genres I've seen where these developments are occurring. Don't like the current trends of Big Gaming? Look to the past or to those lesser lit corners of Steam.

[Clasher]

Every Industry likes to have control over the market, virtually controlling what's released, what people have access to and the features of each individual product to introduce more want and cravings for Better performing products.

In the video game it's no different if you give gamers  every single features that makes a video game appealing in one game then there would be nothing more to add in further sequels.

Explaining further, the game industries just want to make more money but how would they do this if not by releasing the same game over and over again with promises of better features on new titles which could conveniently be included in the previous titles.

[The Blackangel]

I would say time constraints and money. Things are always removed last minute. There's no modern game that is exempt from this rule.

[killamch89]

EA tends to do this a lot - I've seen them do this in Fifa multiple times. Remove features only to re-add them a couple years later and call it a "revolutionary new feature". For other companies, there are various factors at work which may include: the way the game is coded.

[Kane99]

The Blackangel is correct. It usually comes down to time constraints and the budget. I look at GTA IV to GTA V for example. You see a bigger game in GTA V correct? Well, there was a lot of things in GTA IV that didn't show up in GTA V. One thing I found was that the fighting was worse in GTA V than it was in GTA IV, at least in my opinon. I just remember GTA IV having more combo options with your fighting. 

This video shows some things GTA IV did better: 

 

[Clasher]

11 hours ago, Kane99 said:

The Blackangel is correct. It usually comes down to time constraints and the budget. I look at GTA IV to GTA V for example. You see a bigger game in GTA V correct? Well, there was a lot of things in GTA IV that didn't show up in GTA V. One thing I found was that the fighting was worse in GTA V than it was in GTA IV, at least in my opinon. I just remember GTA IV having more combo options with your fighting. 

This video shows some things GTA IV did better: 

 

Sequels of video games nowadays are just addition and subtraction, you take one part out so it doesn't appear in the new game and you add some other new features so the new game feels unique.

 

[Syntax]

Cost, timelines, or the fact that very few people would notice the change and it instead lets them spend more time adding features elsewhere (bigger map, more detailed city, etc.).

[Kane99]

On 7/28/2022 at 4:20 AM, Clasher said:

Sequels of video games nowadays are just addition and subtraction, you take one part out so it doesn't appear in the new game and you add some other new features so the new game feels unique.

 

Pretty much this. With GTA IV to GTA V, they probably didn't have time to add every detail that was in GTA IV. As well, some of the coding probably didn't translate well and it made it harder to replicate some of the things the previous games had. There is a lot that GTA V does better than GTA IV as well.

After I re-watched that video, I realized how more realistic feeling the driving felt compared to GTA V. GTA IV just had better driving it seems. 

[Clasher]

7 hours ago, Kane99 said:

Pretty much this. With GTA IV to GTA V, they probably didn't have time to add every detail that was in GTA IV. As well, some of the coding probably didn't translate well and it made it harder to replicate some of the things the previous games had. There is a lot that GTA V does better than GTA IV as well.

After I re-watched that video, I realized how more realistic feeling the driving felt compared to GTA V. GTA IV just had better driving it seems. 

The driving in GTA IV was superb that would only mean that the developers would spend more money trying to make it more better in GTA V so instead they tuned it down a bit so they don't feel exactly the same so the game have some differences.

And it's still the same case of substraction and addition to make a sequel of a game.

[Empire]

If in the wrong hands, it could be an issue that ruins a game (Star Wars Galaxies being an example), but it does more good than bad in the game industry, so I'm alright with it.

[Justin11]

Such made me to stop playing EA FIFA due to the fact that, the series decided to carry all tremendous features to it's FUT mode, leaving offline career mode with less feature. Before you unlock any item in offline career mode you'll go through hell, but in FUT, you can upgrade to that feature with coins you purchased with value. 

[Heatman]

These developers have never cared so much about how gamers feel and it's why they keep making unnecessary changes to games that seems to be perfect in every way. Sadly, they are calm because they are very sure that gamers will always buy the games no matter what functionality they remove or add to the game. 

[Justin11]

On 8/18/2022 at 9:36 PM, Heatman said:

These developers have never cared so much about how gamers feel and it's why they keep making unnecessary changes to games that seems to be perfect in every way. Sadly, they are calm because they are very sure that gamers will always buy the games no matter what functionality they remove or add to the game. 

In as much as game developers try to make games as interesting as it can be but they should always try to know what the fans want and not develop games which fans wouldn't find satisfactory.