Game On or OMG NEW NEED FOR SPEED

Microsoft versus Sony, Battlefield versus Call of Duty and Forza versus Gran Turismo. These are some of the rivalries that can get people talking about console wars. “Game On or Game Over” is your place to get inside the minds of Nicholas and Andy as they seek to find the true meaning of gaming and tackle some of gaming’s most controversial subjects. Both are award winning authors – although the awards haven’t been mailed or created yet — but trust them. Would they lie to you?

Nicholas: With a few weeks of speculation and finally a teaser trailer released last week, there’s really only one thing I’d like to discuss today – Need For Speed. OK, perhaps our readers won’t appreciate that, but it’s certainly something I’d like to kick this week’s topic off with.

Last Thursday, EA finally released a teaser trailer for the upcoming instalment in the franchise. It’s being considered as a reboot of the franchise, promising to feature deep customisation, authentic urban car culture, a nocturnal open world and an immersive narrative that pulls you through the game. Excuse me for a moment as I try to calm down from all this excitement. OK, I think I’m ready now.

For quite a while now gamers have been crying for a sequel to Underground 2 and despite the fact this game isn’t officially called Need For Speed Underground 3, it certain seems to be a spiritual successor to what is not just one of mine, but many other fan’s favourite title in the series. To kick things off this week I wanted to ask you why you think EA are so reluctant to include ‘Underground’ in this game’s title, what your impressions are of what we’ve seen so far, and what is your stance on franchises electing to go down the reboot route rather than new avenues to explore?

Andy: I must be psychic because the moment I saw that trailer I knew this was going to be the topic we were going to discuss this week. Much like we will (hopefully) be discussing Fallout 4 after E3 (oh come on, you know I had to say the F word at least once). You’re actually asking a couple things here, so let me start with the first one. I think EA is reluctant to mention the Underground name, because for many Need for Speed fans, that was everything that was right about the series. It was the pinnacle of what NFS stood for and was about. So, if they slap Underground on the next NFS game it will sell copies of course, but with that moniker comes a whole slew of expectations. Who knows, they may still add Underground to the title, I have a hard time believing it will be just Need For Speed. With the franchise skipping last year, there’s an even greater weight on the developer to make this the NFS game that fans have wanted for a long time. That’s not discounting the past few games, but there is a certain nostalgia attached to Underground that will be very tough to measure up to.

As far as the trailer, I’ll probably get a little bit of hate for this but – it is what it is. I am finding it increasingly difficult to get ramped up over trailers, especially “teaser trailers”, anymore. We’ve both seen initial trailers that look absolutely amazing only for the real game to be blah. I’m not saying this is one of those cases, but I’m checking my emotions at the door. On what I saw though, it looks gorgeous – but is that gameplay, actual in-game, or just CGI created to make a kickass trailer and get people talking? We’ll find out as we go. I know there’s a certain Underground feel to it, and I was happy I saw my Porsche 911 in there. But when push comes to shove it’s a 30 second trailer, I need to see more before I get too excited.

Like the influx of ‘remastered’ games, we are also seeing a lot of ‘reboots’. In laymen’s terms, “reboot” means we don’t have any more ideas so let’s use something that was successful before.  As much as I love NFS games, I’m not really sure saying “reboot” applies to a racing title. When I hear the term reboot, to me, it means the developer is saying “Hey look, everything that has happened before this game doesn’t count anymore.” OK, fine I get it… but the stories, at least for NFS, are just a crutch to get you behind the wheel. By buying into these reboots, it’s almost the same as buying into remastered games. I’m not saying NFS games have to be revolutionary, hell just make it fun to drive, have a good assortment of cars, a variety of race types, some customizing options, a nitrous button and call it a day and I’ll play it. I feel like I am being unnecessarily harsh here, and I don’t mean to be. If this NFS game turns out to be as fun as I hope then I’ll play the crap out of it – I don’t care what it’s called. It could be called Need for Speed: Driving Ms. Daisy and be fun as hell and I’d play it. I don’t care what it’s called as long as it’s fun.

Enough about me rambling though. I know you are chomping at the bit. Now that you’ve had some time to stop running around your neighbourhood knocking on people’s door telling them the next NFS game is coming out, what are your thoughts on what you’ve seen so far? What’s your take on the reboot angle?

Nicholas: I’m much with you on the whole teaser trailer thing you’ve mentioned. I really wanted to be blown away by the video, but there just isn’t enough yet for me to really go off. The elements I mentioned at the beginning are from the press release and if done well this game shows a lot of promise, but I’m not really sure what to expect yet from what they’ve shown us. That said, I’m certainly liking the return to night racing, I’m liking that it seems to have a focus on more ‘regular’ vehicles and I’m really keen to see greater emphasis on customisation. It doesn’t need to be called Underground 3 but it needs to have the elements that made the original two titles great. That and to have them done well.

Regarding reboots, I’m a lot more tolerant of them than what you are – however I’m a lot more tolerant of HD remakes too. I don’t mind if a franchise recognises that it has deviated away from its roots (although Underground technically isn’t this series’ roots) and wants to return to what fans loved to most. While I do understand the argument (and ultimately, the need) for series to innovate and improve, honouring what made the franchise successful and giving it a fresh coat of paint isn’t a bad thing. In the case of NFS, rebooting the series and going back to the illegal street racing scene isn’t so much as rehashing old content but returning to a formula that works and quite frankly, hasn’t been properly represented in games for quite some time.

Speaking of reboots though, it seems like EA tried to reboot the franchise before with the release of Most Wanted in 2012. It makes me ask, does the term ‘reboot’ seem almost redundant and as you said, is just a way to essentially give fans Underground 3 without using the name and having to deal with potentially unrealistic expectations? At the same time, what franchise would you love to see rebooted, and what elements and features would they need to bring back for it to be truly successful?

Andy: Maybe I came off a little too strong in my first reply. I don’t necessarily hate reboots, but at the same time when a movie or game series is constantly being rebooted that’s where I have more issues. Like you said, in 2010 I remember hearing/reading some things about rebooting NFS after some slumping sales. Quite honestly I hadn’t played a NFS game since the first ProStreet which I absolutely hated. I didn’t like anything about that title and gave up on series, then along came Hot Pursuit (itself another reused title) and I was back on my NFS kick and loving the franchise again. It didn’t have to be called Hot Pursuit, it was fun so I played it.

The thing about reboots though it there are certain expectations from both gamers and developers alike. Let’s take Underground for instance. If you talk to a Need for Speed fan and ask what they liked about Underground 2 and then what they’d want to see in Underground 3 they would list pretty much the same thing I recon. Now, when you ask a developer (especially a developer that didn’t work on the last one) to make Underground 3 when they have an idea, someone could say “No that wasn’t in Underground 2” so the idea is scrapped. So the term “reboot” then automatically carries a burden that is hard to get away from. So from a personal standpoint, I hope it’s not Underground 3. But I also hope it’s a hell of a game too because I love the franchise.

So you went ahead and asked me to pick a franchise I would want to be rebooted, even though I hate that term. You are an evil person. But, I put a lot of thought into it. First, if a game has released a sequel, prequel, or any game with the franchise name on in in the last 10 year it’s automatically excluded. My first thought was to bring back the game Myst because it’s a type of game we don’t see much anymore, but… it was re-released in 2012 for PS3 and PSP so that’s out the window. Then I thought of the old school NES game Shadowgate… but lookie there. That too was re-released in 2014 on Steam.  What about Oregon Trail? Nope, that was remade as a DS game and was terrible. Then I thought Phantasy Star, but wouldn’t you know it was released in 2014. It seems almost every game I can think of has already had some newer release tied to it.

So, I dug deep into my games played memories, sifted through the crap and I think I’ve settled on one. It’s from a well-known developer, Bioware. It has a mythical setting inspired by real world location. Has RPG elements, story driven, has a variety of ways to play and has the opportunity for choices to make a big difference in how the rest of the game plays out. Has not had a title released in the last ten years. Yes, I think I have come to an answer. I give you the reboot of Jade Empire. Really though, thinking about it, it could be a really cool game. The setting would be just different enough from everything else that’s out there now. It’s also a game that the newer generation of gamers aren’t very familiar with so a reboot would make sense. So that’s my pick, I know Underground is yours, but putting that aside is there a game from your childhood that you remember playing that’d you’d love to see another made? Or with the newest NFS coming are you now satisfied and looking towards new things?

Nicholas: I’m always excited to re-experience great gaming memories from my childhood. Hell, it’s the reason I’ve been downloading and playing the classic Donkey Kong Country titles on my Wii U for the past month or so. As I think about it, Need For Speed Underground is perhaps the top game on that list purely for the fact so much of my love for cars and racing stems from that game. If I apply your same filter process then there’s no titles which haven’t received a re-release or prequel/sequel in the last 10 years, so for me, it’s all about seeing new iterations of existing franchises. I’d love to see a sequel to Perfect Dark. I’d love to see a proper sequel to Banjo-Tooie. Another successor to Donkey Kong 64 even.

I’d like to go on a slight tangent though and speak about the development of this new Need For Speed game. Alongside the release of the teaser trailer last week there were a few sites that came out advising they participated in providing feedback to EA for this upcoming title. Sites like Speed Hunters and Zen Garage both advised they were consulted for opinions and ideas. This then got me thinking about how Project CARS was funded and developed with the community at each stage throughout the process. Now that we have the finished product you can certainly tell there’s just an extra element of love and attention to detail that most racers lack. Then I thought about gamers funding Yooka-Laylee on Kickstarter and how quickly the developers were able to reach and exceed their initial goals. There are even options for people to donate certain sums of money and get involved in the development process.

So off that, there seems to be a new trend of developers engaging the community to help create their games. In your opinion, is this a great route for developers to go down, and do you see the end result being better quality and more fan-focused titles?

Andy: I think, like most things, it can be a hit and miss type of scenario. A big part of it is on what level the developer takes the feedback and who is giving the feedback and input. Add to that the fact that gamers, no matter what we think, may not always know what makes a game good or fun. Sure I know what type of things I like in a game, but it’s a whole other story for me to assume to know what other gamers like and be able to implement something along those lines. In the case of racing games it’s even more tricky.  A title like Project CARS doesn’t interest me because I’m more of an arcade-style racing fan, think Forza Horizon and Need For Speed. So a game made or heavily influenced by car junkies isn’t my cup of tea. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad game, but those simulator style titles don’t appeal to every racing fan.

Is it good that developers are willing to engage the community? Absolutely. I think we’ve reached a point in gaming where developers would be foolish to ignore their feedback. Of course they can do with that information what they will, but at least they can get that option. Now, saying that, getting feedback can also be a negative thing. No, I’m not crazy (OK I am … a little bit but not for this). Let me explain. If a developer only takes feedback from one segment of their fan base and completely ignores everyone else it has the chance to alienate a section of the community who made the game popular to begin with. This exact thing happened with Call of Duty. Since Black Ops 2 the franchise seems to cater more and more to the MLG crowd. Once they did that it stopped being fun for me, and several of my friends who were big CoD fans have gradually moved away from the series.

I understand developers can’t please 100% of the people 100% of the time. Every decision any developer makes will be second guessed, more so if a game struggles or has problems. There is a balance of making sure everyone has something to like and a reason to continue to keep playing yet still push the envelope and refine the game at the same time. We’re now back to our familiar adage, I’m not sure what the right answer is when it comes to looking for feedback. Naturally, when you (as the developer) look for feedback you are most likely to go to your own forums, Facebook page or Twitter. What type of consumers are on those avenues? The ardent fans. So asking for feedback and input is nice, but if it’s only from one source or one group then you have to take that into consideration as well. It’s like a celebrity surrounding themselves with people that will say what they want to hear, instead of what needs to be said.

As I type the above, while it makes sense I also feel a little disappointed in myself. I want to be happy developers are doing that more and more, but – speaking as a gamer – there has simply been too many instances of being burned by developers to take them fully at their word. Is this a case where I am simply being too cynical and should take things at face value and just be… happy?

Nicholas: In short, yes – but what’s new? I think you certainly raise a valid question that going to the online community for input may be ignoring a segment of the fan base that don’t have a voice, but then again, the range of people online is quite broad. If we use Call of Duty as an example, not everyone who uses the forums or posts on their Facebook page is a competitive gamer, so the developers are bound to get a cross section of fans who represent different kinds of gamers. Yes of course, there might be a particular segment that are more vocal than others, but then it’s up to the developers to gather all that data, analyse it and take something away from it.

You mentioned that games can’t cater for 100% of all gamers all the time, and that’s just the same risk that developers face when asking for player input. What I think these companies need to do is go to the community for input on what they’d like to see, and then using that feedback to give them a guide on what direction to take. For example, Turn10 might not be able to please all gamers with a simulator like Forza Motorsport, but what they should do is get feedback on what the market might be asking for, and then they decide what elements make the best game that fit into not just their vision, but what also makes for a fun game. Yes it can’t please everyone, but no game can anyway.

I guess the alternative is to completely ignore fan feedback, but then what position will the developer (and gamers) be in? We can either take input from the community and make a game that appeals to 50% (completely random number) of the player base, or they can listen to no-one and make a game they think gamers might like, and end up missing the mark entirely.

This makes me think about the route Assassin’s Creed has taken with the last few games that allows you to rate each mission out of five stars and submit it back to Ubisoft. This way, all players have the chance to have a say and Ubisoft get as close as possible to interviewing the entire market. I’m not sure if it’s a coincidence, but the last two games have been really strong in my opinion, so I wonder if that’s due to the fact gamers can give more precise feedback on what they want to see. To end this week’s article let’s bring it all full circle. Firstly, do you think Ubisoft are doing player feedback the best way possible, and secondly, with this new NFS game coming out later this year, what do you want to see from the title and what would you rather they avoid?

Andy: I think the Assassin’s Creed example is a really good one, but for a different reason. I like the idea of rating missions once they are complete, but I think for the most part it’s only an illusion of asking for feedback, or at best it’s feedback that they may take into a count several years down the road. Now before you completely ignore what I’m saying hear me out. You’re playing Unity and you rate a mission as hating it, you drop a one star on it. Odds are that same type of mission will be in Assassin’s Creed Syndicate, why? Not because Ubisoft is ignoring that feedback, but because they started work on Syndicate a year or two ago. So, the odds of that feedback having any immediate impact is very minimal, but I will give them credit that they are at least asking for some type of feedback.

If I had to pick either or, I would pick the case of a developer at least asking for feedback. Sure, they may not ask every demographic, player group or hardcore vs casual gamer. They may even choose, like Call of Duty, to cater towards a certain segment of their player base. If that is the end result, they have every right to make the choices they want. If they want their game to be featured more of the competitive scene then it makes sense to seek out feedback from that group. Sure they may lose a few fans along the way, but it’s their vision, their game, so I can’t fault them for it.

To bring this week’s discussion to a close, what do I want to see from this upcoming NFS title? Hmm, a good solid variety of cars and a more race-orientated multiplayer. The last two NFS titles have left me very blah in terms of MP content. Some customization options, with the caveat of not too many. I don’t want the Forza level of customization because that confuses the crap out of me. Also, don’t make the mistake of having cars all be unlocked. Let me earn them. That’s one thing I loved about Most Wanted (2012) I had to earn every car I drove. It gave me a reason to keep playing and working toward something. The last thing I want (and probably won’t get) is no micro-transactions. Don’t nickel and dime me, let me buy the game, a couple DLC and be done.

Neither you or I have ever made a secret of the fact that we are both Need for Speed fans. It fits my playstyle perfectly and I genuinely enjoy playing it. It’s easy to pick up and there aren’t many things better in gaming than claiming the top of a leaderboard over slower friends (Hi Noel!). Sure we haven’t really seen anything of substance to go on, a few screenshots, a teaser video and lots of talk. Yet, we’re already chomping at the bit to play it. That’s one of the great things about being a gamer, for most people Christmas only comes once a year. For gamers, it comes every release day when there’s something we’re looking forward to. Here’s hoping it has everything we want it to have and more. Regardless, I’ll save second place on the leaderboards for you.

Tune in next time for the next instalment of Game On or Game Over. If you have any ideas for our next article, feel free to contact Andy or Nicholas on Twitter.