The problem with "feature creeping"
by Ross Miller 
{ Oct 4th 2005 at 7:30PM }
Not everyone is excited at the thought of added features to their
video games, and to be honest some games should have followed the old adage "less is more" (Super Mario
Sunshine and its squirt gun gimmick, for example). John Tynes, contributing writer for online magazine The
Escapist, has written an article lamenting on the practice of
"feature creeping" – that is, adding features to make a
sequel look more appealing for purchase but ultimately makes the learning curve too steep. He even goes so far as to
say, had the good people at Bungie not spent so much time worrying over normal-mapped graphics, we would have seen a
real ending to Halo 2.
Tynes, unmistakably a fan of retro gaming, makes a great point – are gamers too focused on adding more that they
forget to fine-tune and improve what they have in the game? Tynes suggests a solution of adding more content – not
features – to existing games (for example, a new Splinter Cell level each month) to increase their longevity
while still giving publishers a cash flow, and making developers focus more on making games fun and easily accessible
to people. Are there any games that you feel are too complex for their own good?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jason @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
Any EA Sports game. Sure the buttons are there and could be utilized, but often times I find myself hunting through the manual for what button press or combination does which move. Because some of the most used commands are hidden among a slew of other button combinations and often non-obvious. Instead of cramming in more special moves EA really needs to concentrate on making a top notch sports game and refine a lot of what's broken (i.e. most things in the sports franchises.)
Imp @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
I really enjoyed Sunshine...
Jesse J. Anderson @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
There's a reason most of us guys can't get our girlfriends to play any videogames with us, but then pull out an old NES and they're game for some good ol mario bros. or perhaps some old-school arcade Pac-Man. Video games have gotten too complex for the general audience and are continuing to grow more so.
Chris McDowell @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
I find retro gaming boring after a few minutes. I think there are not enough good features in games today and we need more. More well thought out features though. Not just more moves to tackle someone I want more interactivity with environments and larger areas with multiplayer and lots of things to do in those environments. Better AI too I hate it when there are about 20 different lines an npc says and they repeat themselves. I also love shading and volumentrics in games so I guess I am a big graphics fan too.
Chris McDowell @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
Oh and I think Splinter cell has done a great job on improving the gameplay with new features. I love the next one more than the last.
Cooper @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
Final Fantasy Online comes to mind. The interface for saving any EA Sports title is clunky, but not a gameplay issue. I think Double Dash is the opposite; new features NOT at the expense of gameplay.
GlitchCog @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
Am I the only one who thinks that a "water flower" could have saved that game? I mean, they did the fire flower, and now they wanted Mario to shoot water... It seems like it would have been a logical choice and would have remained closer to the original Mario concept.
PB @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
"Not everyone is excited at the thought of added features to their video games, and to be honest some games should have followed the old adage less is more (Super Mario Sunshine and its squirt gun gimmick, for example)."
Honestly, they should've ditched the water gun and strapped Mario with a pair of oozies. To cater to teh hardcore consum... audience.
superberg @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
I tend to feel that the issue isn't so much having too much to do as it is being presented with too much at once. When the first level of a game is a training ground (like Deus Ex, or Splinter Cell), I tend to get bored very quickly.
Now, games like Castlevania: SotN and Metroid Prime still have fairly complex control schemes, but because you learn skills gradually, the controls aren't intimidating. Prince of Persia did a pretty good job of this as well.
vrf @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
I agree with (#3) Chris's comment that we need more interactivity with environments. Give me a driving game or FPS that has a completely realistic environment with physics that'll knock your socks off. I want things to behave like they are real, not just look like they are.
Every game I play is "on rails" these days. I want freedom and realism in the next gen.
Unfortunatly, screenshots still sell games. And from what I've seen of the next gen games, it's all about pretty graphics and that's about it.
tack @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
Actually, what he's describing is not Feature Creep.
Feature Creep is when already in development, entirely new features are added (usually when designing on the fly) which then pushes out the dev cycle, delaying the release.
superberg @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
#9"Every game I play is "on rails" these days. I want freedom and realism in the next gen."
With more and more games going for the open-ended GTA style, I can't say I agree with that. Ultimate Spider-Man and Tony Hawk's American Wasteland to name a couple.
Of course, maybe I just see it that way because I don't care much for GTA.
JJ @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
G(l)amers are the WRONG people to be asking this question.
BlackYoshi @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
I want to see less Sandbox games. Everyone is doing it now, and its just silly. I sort of like my games to have a unifying purpose like a book or movie does, not mindlessly rolling around shooting blacks and mexicans or pulling kickflips. Sure they can be fun, but I sort of get bored with frolicking around after about an hour, and generally, the missions in the game are rather weak.
NergiZed @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
I would have to agree with this. I would much rather have a bigger map or a longer game, then a new ability or something else. PS3 and 360 are all going for graphics, gameplay might be improved, but only slightly, while Ninty goes and changes it completly.
But if you think about it, who's gonna have bigger games (hours spent completeing a game)? Of course Sony's gonna have bigger games, cause they have blue ray, and they're gonna have good grphics too, cause blue-ray is huge. But will they have a lot of developers? Not likely. So Sony will have less games, but they're big and have good graphics.
What about 360? It's gonna have smaller games, cause it has to support HDTV, yet use DVDs, so the size of the game is sacrificed for graphics. Will they have a lot of developers? More than PS3. So 360's gonna have smaller games with good graphics, but they're gonna have more than the PS3.
Lastly we have the Revolution. It will have bigger games than the 360 and games with good graphics, but no HD. Will it have a lot of developers? More than the PS3, possibly more than the 360. Because the Revolution is much more easy to develope for, because it's dev kit is very similar to the one of the Game Cube.
That's how I see things for next-gen, I think 360 is gonna have a strong point, the PS3 will do good in Japan but not as good in the US, The Revolution is still a variable. But the Revo might win over a lot of developers cause it's cheaper, one of the reasons PS2 won last-gen.
Lane @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
i dont get whats wrong with sushine. its one of my favorite cube games. the water pack is what made it fun in my opinion.
ill trooper @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
Did someone say a new Splinter Cell level every month? Oh, that was just speculation. OK. I spilled my cereal when I read that.
My friends and I sometimes speculate on why the Tom Clancy games try to reinvent the wheel everytime. Or rather, try to figure out yet another button to assign the 'crouch' or 'switch weapon' or whatever to. Although (Tom Clancy's) Ghost Recon, (Tom Clancy's) Rainbow Six and (Tom Clancy's) Splinter Cell all have night vision, stand/crouch commands, they are different. The unique features in each game are not so drastic that the other controls can't utilize some consistancy.
Rare Hare @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
i think whoever wrote that is a moron if he thinks we shouldn't advance the features in our games..
rick @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
That water pack was no gimmick, wrong game to use as an example. My kid loves that game, it's very creative.
Sloopydrew @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
I actually liked the water tank thing in Super Mario Sunshine. Overall though, I agree that this "feature creeping" usually takes away from games.
Todd @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
I kinda agree, except I did like Sunshine too. I personally would like to see more games that aren't so concerned with graphics or moves that your character can do and strive to create a deeper gaming environment. Give me camera control, movement and grab/drop...and that's it. Then put me into a world that is really, really BIG with realistic physics and something new around each corner. No levels, no goals, no tasks...just allow me to explore and find things to do on my own. Give me tons and tons of options. To me this would be the perfect game. No matter how long you played it you could still find something new, something you've never thought of doing. Plus people new to the game could do something that you never thought of and have something you've never seen happen. Try to intrigue me with variety, not dazzle me with graphics. Give me something to waste my time on, not beat and move on to the next game.
Ryuukuro @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
In Sunshine the water pack itself wasn't a problem (although I hope it doesn't show up anymore.) It was the way it was implemented with a lack of basic logic that made the gameplay bad. Why couldn't you switch between nozzles? Why did you have to find them every time you entered a level? That was just silly and annoying and it broke the game. (That and those obnoxious "secret levels." Geez!)
As for being too complex, right now I'm playing Viewtiful Joe for the first time and even though it's fun it gets very frustrating figuring out the controls. Just sticking to kicks and punches and jumping would have been sufficient but the other functions, as cool as they are, feel like a hinderance and an excuse for some cheap shots.
Oh, and Madden Football. Since I know crap about football I don't know how to play it even when someone shows me what buttons to press. It's a lot easier to play a pick up game with real people instead of pressing buttons. That how complicated the game is and that's ridiculous.
Tommy @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
I think it is funny that no one has mentioned Sin episodes that is coming out via steam. That is exactly what this guy is asking for.
Chris McDowell @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
Open ended games would be alot more fun if you could play them in a multiplayer environment. I get bored with gta I mainly just run from the cops but if I could do it with a friend or 40 friends than that would be lots of fun. I want to be able to play a game like Fable and be able to take over villages and kill everyone. Or maybe defend as many people as I could from some other guy who is being bad and trying to take over albion. I want to have it Multiplayer but huge maps filled with real and npc players and I don't want to have set goals. Similar to WOW but with a much better feel and less in leveling up. I want it like a fps wow where I can drive cars and not have it based on stats. Sorry I just kinda typed it all out so there it is.
paralipsis @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
I think I fail to act in my own best interest when it comes to games. I often buy games because of their advertised new features. But more often than not those are the games that I lose interest in most quickly.
I am especially afraid that feaure creep will destroy one of my fabourite game series of all time, Fallout. Fallout 2 definitely had tweaks over the original, but remainied basically the same type of game. I just know that when Bethesda finally brings out Fallout 3, it is going to be an overely elaborate 3D game with some supposedly new and innovative character creation system etc.
vrf @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
superberg, yeah , games like GTA are a little more "open," but I still consider them "on rails" because I can't do much. Sure, I can wonder around and shoot at cops and such, but can I go in any building and take the elevator up to the 10th floor for a good sniper position? Can I drive my car into a 7-11? Can I level a shopping mall with a bunch of shoulder-fired rockets?
I want true immersion, not prettier graphics. Reality in games should include physics and behavior, not just photorealism.
jay @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
this is what the Rev is aaaall about baby!
you get this a lot in the freeware gaming world, where people add more and more crap into games until you loose the essence of the game. and the gameplay suffers.
Bungee (however you spell it) are retards for what they did to Halo 2. hah, even Sunshine was better. actually Sunshine was a brilliant game. one of the few times ive really smiled and felt happy from a game was on that first level... good game.
r0Be @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
#22 Ryuukuro
"(That and those obnoxious "secret levels." Geez!)"
First off. I too liked Sunshine quite a bit. Very fun game, had a blast with it. the water was cool.
But, #22 your comment caught me off guard. I LOVED the secret levels. I couldn't help but imagine a whole mario game in that fashion, with flagpoles at the end of these crazy 3d tracks. It was sort of like a puzzle....they should make harder ones though. I honestly loved them. Did other people hate these too?
Sean @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
Ok, the best example I can think of in recent years is Halo 2.
Yep. Dual wielding, fancy graphics, more diverse levels, destructible vehicles: they hit all the high points of the feature-cravings, but they left out some major things.
1. dual wielding a dual-wieldable is *always* better than single-wielding the same weapon. Unless you're a switcher, there is no balance. Sure, reload time is longer, but by the time you reload your SMG, and the plazzies overheat, the opponent with the pistol is down. Accuracy needed to be adjusted big-time, or the feature should have been scrapped.
2. Fancy graphics were covered, but basically, quantity was sacrificed for quality to the point of insufficient game-length.
3. More diverse levels meant that the game didn't flow as seamlessly. In Halo: CE, there was a sense of space, distance, location, etc. In Halo 2, there was no sense of that, and many levels were long merely because the same areas re-appeared more often than they did in the first game (I *hate* gondola rides!!!).
4. Destructible vehicles: this was perhaps the worst feature of them all. This meant that most of the time vehicles were not an asset, but merely a triple-kill waiting for a rocket. Say what you will about the coolness factor, but strategically, vehicles were less important. And the gas tank idea on the ghost was just plain bad, because it led to more "WTF was that" moments than "oh yeah, I'm awesome" ones.
The only feature needed in terms of vehicles was the hijacking. The timing necessary was great, and it lead to real conflict. Also, when you hop in the passenger seat of an enemy-driven warthog and gun down their men on the way back to your own base, it's totally great.
Jonathan Harford @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
I definitely think games are getting too complex and the learning curve is becoming unnecessarily steep. Game designers are so often lazy, assigning new actions to buttons instead of just making a character behave differently in different contexts. The Ocarina of Time did not have a jump button, if I remember correctly.
Any more than two buttons is overkill. A two-button Splinter Cell (say) would have been AWESOME. Maybe.
Viva la Revolucion!
JDH @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
If you destroyed "feature creep" you would destroy any gaming company's ability to charge $50 for a new game. For some reason, the industry thinks this is the most profitable route to go. However, look at the "updates" like Fable: Lost Chapters, its only $20 because the engine and controls are the same.
Realistically, if gaming is going to survive long term (we're looking at an internet bubble waiting to happen, but, without the stock market being involved), gaming companies need to create engines that can do the following:
- Incorporate Company and User created content delivered as a download to install and run within the engine.
- Updated engines that incorporate features (the ones that creeped)
- Open API's for developers (3rd parties) to build add-on's, modules, and new features.
(I'm not talking only PC games. Consoles should incorporate this strategy)
The costs of games would decrease because the engines would be the deliverable within a timely manner. The longevity of games would increase because of newly created content and periodic updated features. Gaming companies could charge 3rd party developers a fee for using their tools to create features and content. Or they could give those tools away and watch their sales climb because nerds like me would buy it just to develop.
Game companies re-invent the wheel more times than not to update graphics, and some features.
Here's a great concept: I buy Madden 07. What I get is the "engine". All of the features like Superstar mode and mini-games are all delivered as updates. Now, to some that seems like only getting part of the game, but if I only paid $20 for the engine and I could decide what "updates" or "features" I wanted, it would be worth it in the long term. (microtransactions - paid to the User or Game Company)
Look at Neverwinter Nights. If you can program in C you can make your own modules for NN. And, there are a ton of modules out there, some that is created by Bioware. It just adds to the value and longevity of games. If you total what I've purchased for NN it totally blows away the $50 that the developer gets with each iteration of a game. I bet a lot more effort went into a one time charge of $50, where they created from the ground up and re-invented the wheels, compared to one of the modules from NN. Plus NN has consistency throughout gameplay.
If this strategy works for them, why not other company's that make games?
dragon.feces @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
I was kind of disapointed when sunshine came out due to the fact it wasn't a remake of Mario 64. Being the Nintendo fanboy I am, I bought it anyway and as I started getting into it, I discovered it was an actual Mario game, but it was in disquise because that damn water that pack scared all the gamers away (#7's "water flower" idea would've worked much better than the pump).
I think alot of games like this are looking complicated to people but are really great games.
On the other hand, I do think some of the Tony Hawks and Maddens are getting out of hand in complexity and unoriginality. Some of the GTA look-alikes are becoming way to similar. I loved GTA 3 and Vice City but I got lost in what to buy after all the
others in the same genere came out(fight or ny, hulk: ultimate destruction) I see why Nintendo isn't releasing a million Mario 64 remakes because they would turn into what GTA has become. I just think Nintendo has to work on scaring everybody away because it looks "different" and "complicated"
dslamngu @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
Being a fighting game fan, I'd have to say that the Mortal Kombat series falls into this problem all the time. Ever since MK3 forced players to learn and practice esoteric combinations, it just kind of lost its appeal to me. Plus, plenty of move combinations changed in MK over the years, preventing one from migrating gaming experience from years ago to the current iterations. The Street Fighter series and Capcom crossovers have tended to keep its classic characters' moves constant over the years (qcf+p will always make Ryu do a Hadouken). The Soul Calibur series, on the other hand, lets new players use characters that have intuitive controls (Mitsurugi, Nightmare) while rewarding players that have the time to learn complex moves (Ivy, Voldo).
One should not have to sit down and learn arcane button combinations to be minimally competitive at a video game. One should be able to use intuition, like jumping out of someone's way or hitting someone when they're vulnerable, than memorization or regurgitation of a mini-cheatcode.
SickNic @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
Indigo prophacy was easy enough for a 4 year old to play, but the story was so compelling and engrossing. We need to see more games like that. I gives a damn about how many different buttons you press, just make me love the story and feel for the characters, and I am in.
With all it's faults, I must say Indigo Prophecy is on my top 10 games of all time list...
mocax @ Dec 18th 2005 10:09PM
Real "Feature Creep" example is Duke Nukem Forever...