Innovation or Replication: What Leads to Success? 

Very interesting video, those charts are interesting but I have something to add to the Final Fantasy bit. I think the sales come from interest of the average consumer vs the avid fans who will play any game in the franchise, not to mention some of the earlier entries initially never came outside Japan or even the US. For example with Final Fantasy III it's a very popular and beloved entry in the series and sold the most during it's release back in the day as it launched alongside many other beloved Famicom RPG like Fire Emblem and Dragon Quest IV so it was part of a really hype period. In addition Final Fantasy always changed things up because that's something they like to do with every game as it was stated in an interview leading up to XVI's release, it's far more of an artistic decision than if it worked or not so the sales more reflect how many were interested in playing that rather than innovation. I think with Zelda it's the most interesting because one can make the argument that Breath of the Wild is the real return of the series to popularity since Ocarina of time because of the sales and how they got over the stagnation. It's also worth mentioning that gaming was a lot less popular and mainstream in the 80s and early 90s, it was a lot more of a niche hobby back then so the sales reflect some of that (less with Pokemon but that was a lightning in the bottle situation), so people weren't really hyper focused on innovating or stagnating when it comes to game design unless it's something groundbreaking.

so many interesting charts here. you did some good research on making them. i agree with you on how some games copy others but still make it really good. i always thought that FF9 did not sell as well as the other around that time because it was released at the end of the PS1 life and PS2 was right around the corner and FFX was not far off so i would imagine peopled skipped it back then because they were hyped for the PS2. but FF8 being pulverizing does not help either. i can say that Majora's Mask sales could also be that you had to own the expansion pack to play it, me and a lot of other people i knew never had one back then so we could not even rent the game where OOT had no expansions needed

Earned my sub. Great video 🎉

An interesting topic, you covered Pokémon and Zelda but left poor old Mario out …. He feels Sad 😊.

Unless it's Painkiller, Innovate. Painkiller? Keep replicating it, it's perfect as it is... either that or leave it be, it's sacred. Pokemon died after XD Gale Of Darkness for me, Colosseum and XD was the innovation I wanted for the series... and they got abandoned in favor for replicating the older games, which were fun at the time but I got bored with the formula. Meanwhile Painkiller has 6 expansions and a remake, I played them all and enjoyed playing each one, the gameplay never gets old, what kept them fresh and interesting were the new levels added as well as new enemies and some new weapons. I don't think changing the formula was Final Fantasy's biggest problem, the biggest problem with Final Fantasy was the fact that the original director left the company. Ultimately though, I think the question we really need to ask is "How have games been affected by their respective eras of release?" Games like Pokemon Colosseum would never exist today if it wasn't for the 2000's heavily emphasizing edge and I miss that. When Valkyrie Profile 2 innovated, people hated it and the game fell under the radar because of it... but I was all for the changes and absolutely adored the game's new direction, can't say the same for Valkyrie Elysium but the reason for that isn't merely due to the innovation, rather the fact that it was outsourced to another development company, which drasically changed everything to the point that it wasn't even remotely recognizable. Valkyrie Profile 2 was recognizable, it still maintained the core aspects of the first game, those being the core idea of the game's combat and the side scrolling levels, while getting rid of all the problems that the original game had, the "Valkyrie Simulation" bullshit with the non-linear approach to progression where 99.99999999999999999999999% of paths lead to what might as well be a game over screen, which meant that only 1 path was viable, which went against the whole non-linear approach but finding that path was borderline impossible due to how cryptic the game is about it. It was a mess but sadly people were more taken by it than 2 generally speaking and they were upset when 2 removed all that in favor of more traditional progression and removal of einherjar cutscenes in favor of an actual story, something that was lacking in the original Valkyrie Profile. As an advocate for Valkyrie Profile 2 and as someone who is sick and tired of hearing its naysayers constantly beat the dead horse, I can safely say that I'm on team innovation... just don't touch Painkiller it's sacred. I think when games absolutely nail the formula, they should be left be. I think some franchises should just end and stop getting released entirely. Painkiller and Onimusha being two examples of this, leave them be, maybe re-release them on modern systems then leave them alone. Don't ruin something that is perfected, particularly if they are narrative driven experiences. I think game companies need to stop leaning on brand names and start making new IPs. I think this paints a clear picture of how I feel about gaming nowadays, I'm absolutely sick of modern gaming.

So the real conclusion is there is no conclusion! Haha With Pokémon, the innovation tends to come with the programming for new hardware. Gen 1 to 2 expanded the color palate. 2 to 3 increased the bit rate. 3 to 4 added wifi capabilities. 4 to 5 enhanced the wifi capabilities and added visual depth / enhanced combat animations. 5 to 6 made home wifi more accessible (for me anyway). It also was the first mainline game to sport full 3D visuals. After that, the distinctions become murky. Is Sun and Moon really a 7th gen? Only because of an enhanced roster. I don’t see how sword and shield utilize switch hardware to provide a unique experience aside from perhaps the open area or dlc. It feels like Game Freak lost their mojo by that point. Holistically and conceptually though, Pokémon has been an innovative series. The difficulty is that it has had to continue innovating to maintain progress and oftentimes it’s questionable. Rather than “false innovation” I’d refer to these moves as “lackluster innovation.” Per the third entries ie Yellow Crystal, if you adjust for ratios since the originals come in pairs, they actually have nearly equivalent sales. I appreciated seeing this data - I wasn’t aware how strong the original titles sold comparatively. It makes me wonder if the series can ever be as phenomenal as it was when it first hit. There’s a reason it’s our generation that really got hit with the poke fever and not more current generations!

Honestly, i was underwhelmed by BOTW. You can be innovative while maintaining its core structure. Taking away the things i liked about it soured me quite a bit. The physics playground is not why i play Zelda. I play for the dungeons, the tools, the feel of progress that allows you to unlock more of the world. I stopped after a 20 hours into TOTK, feels like a massive waste of time. I feel games are too saturated nowaday and quality is on the decline. I feel botw and totk could have been another series and not zelda.