Saturday Soapbox: Something Borrowed

Is the increasing recycling of game assets a cause for concern?

Sometimes it's the flawed ones that make you think the most. During a rare moment of downtime in the disappointing Dead Rising 2: Off The Record, I started considering how developers and publishers reuse content: what represents an acceptable recycling of assets, and what doesn't.

Is one man's fan service really another man's cynical cash-grab? Are publishers exploiting fans or simply trying to make games more financially viable? Would anyone quibble over buying three different versions of Street Fighter IV if they knew their money was the difference between Capcom producing an SFV and abandoning the series permanently?

This isn't necessarily a recent phenomenon, but it's becoming more commonplace, and that's because gaming is going through a period of pretty serious upheaval. Long-established traditions are disappearing. Nintendo's dominance of the handheld arena is all but over; mobile and social gaming are the biggest new market drivers; the App Store is ripping up the rule book on distribution and pricing with iconoclastic glee. It's impossible to be certain of anything. Nothing is true; everything is permitted.

The console games market in particular is under increasing pressure. Profit margins are growing thinner and rising development costs aren't helping. In a market where a game can sell a million copies or more and still lose money, is it fair to expect developers not to make more use of the assets, the characters, the worlds they've painstakingly created? And in games where these characters and worlds warrant a revisit, why, indeed, are we complaining?

1

Introduce a popular character to a beat-'em-up series and watch interest soar. Ezio in Soul Calibur and Phoenix Wright in Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 have me seriously considering buying games I'd otherwise have only a casual interest in.

Recycling happens for several reasons, not least the need to (warning: a horrible marketing term approaches) maintain brand momentum. Franchising is a way to offset the higher risk of the biggest-budget titles, which means publishers will explore the most cost-effective ways of reducing that risk and attempting to increase profitability. Hence: sequels with negligible improvements, downloadable content, director's cuts, Game of the Year editions.

Meanwhile, from a creative standpoint, it's a way for developers to re-examine worlds and ideas, fix stuff that was previously broken and elaborate on elements that were glossed over - or just tell us a new story. It's easy to see why it appeals to both parties.

I've already mentioned Capcom. The publisher is a master of this particular art, with roughly 43 Street Fighters under its belt - which makes the aforementioned Off The Record a particularly interesting case in point, especially in light of its two previous attempts at recycling this game.

The two downloadable episodes for Dead Rising 2 offered different locations as well as fresh combo weapons and a new story in each instance. Case Zero benefited from arriving before the game proper; Case West doubled the cost but introduced co-op, Frank West and another new location, thus proving similarly worthwhile. Off the Record, however, saw Blue Castle effectively copy-paste the original narrative and digitally insert Frank into scenes where Chuck once stood. An additional sandbox mode wasn't enough to prevent a serious case of déjà vu.

2

Remedy's Alan Wake DLC proves the 'make your character even more of a dick' approach is unlikely to catch on.

Yet it's possible to see it from another perspective. PS3 and PC owners with no access to the Xbox-exclusive DLC don't have the improvements or differences in those two games to compare with. I've heard some say they couldn't get into Dead Rising 2 but the re-introduction of Frank and the addition of checkpoints made it more appealing and accessible than the original, especially at a budget price.

It's a tricky balancing act, that's for sure, and one which even the industry's top dogs are struggling to get right. Rockstar appears to be heading in the right direction: the vast sprawl of GTA4's Liberty City was always going welcome repeat visits, and The Lost and Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony proved the Housers' proto-New York had more stories to tell. Undead Nightmare fundamentally changed the way you played Red Dead Redemption - although I sincerely hope 'It's [Franchise X], but with added zombies!' (or Sarah Michelle Gellar, same difference) doesn't become the de facto approach to DLC. But the publisher stumbled with LA Noire's extra cases, which, as memorably discussed in John Teti's review of the Nicholson Electroplating DLC, failed to work outside the context of the game's narrative.

Fitting a story into a wider universe - one that players will often have invested upwards of 20 hours in - while making it interesting enough to work as standalone content is not easy. Even the most successful of storytellers have struggled.

Fallout 3's five episodic adventures varied wildly in quality, and while Broken Steel was welcomed by those who finally had the opportunity to raise their level above the previous cap of 20, a great many were troubled by the need to change the game's ending to get there. BioWare seemed to have nailed it with Dragon Age: Origins' huge Awakenings expansion and Mass Effect 2's splendid side-stories Lair of the Shadow Broker and Kasumi: Stolen Memories - but that would be to ignore misfires like Dragon Age 2: Legacy and Origins' Return To Ostragar. Meanwhile, Lionhead's attempts to expand the Fable series have been particularly laboured. Albion's a lovely place, but it turns out once you've saved it from impending doom, it's tough to really care about going back.

3

Gearbox slyly referenced the concept of asset reuse in Borderlands DLC The Zombie Island of Dr. Ned, before experimenting with the form of its game in Mad Moxxi's Underdome Riot and The Secret Armory of General Knoxx.

Just as some songwriters save their really good tunes for that difficult second album, perhaps the trick is to hang onto your best stuff a while longer. For many, BioShock 2: Minerva's Den trumped its parent game, while Gearbox's Borderlands expansions have been particularly excellent, introducing new characters and ideas to add colour to a world the main game's campaign only lightly sketched.

I often wonder if developers could take tips from PC modders to really make the most of the worlds they've created, though the very best examples - like Half-Life 2 mod Dear Esther - are likely more time-consuming and expensive than is worth a developer's while.

Then there's the Nintendo approach. Ever thrifty and forward-thinking, the Kyoto colossus worked out the benefits of asset reuse in the N64 era, most notably around the release of Ocarina of Time, when Miyamoto posited the idea of a quick follow-up in the form of the Master Quest. Eiji Aonuma disagreed, and we ended up with Majora's Mask: not the worst result ever.

Super Mario Galaxy 2 was internally described as Galaxy 1.5, with Nintendo planning to shove out a simple level pack of new galaxies in the hope that everyone would be having too much fun to notice how familiar it all was. But Koizumi and co. cocked that one up too, chucking in Yoshi, streamlining the decorative but functionally pointless hub and somehow managing to better a game with a Metacritic rating of 97.

4

Resi 5's terrific Lost in Nightmares episode moved away from the action-heavy focus of the main game to bring us something closer to the original survival horror template.

Few developers can leverage the popularity of such iconic characters. Even so, it seems that creating an avatar that people respond to can be rather lucrative - as Ubisoft has found out with the Assassin's Creed series, capitalising on the love for Ezio Auditore da Firenze to craft an entirely unplanned trilogy of titles for the Renaissance hitman. It would be unfair to suggest others follow Ubisoft's example, mind; hardly any developer has access to the kind of resources and financial backing, not to mention the workforce, of the publisher's gigantic Montreal studio.

Perhaps there's a lesson in keeping it simple. It's a method that has worked well for Sega's Yakuza series; five games down and fans still aren't sick of the gaudy delights of Kamurocho, even if creator Toshihiro Nagoshi seemingly got so fed up of the place that he decided to destroy it in a zombie outbreak. It's proof that if you have a compelling game world and change just enough each time, you can be onto a winner without breaking the bank.

As Johnny Minkley said in his recent Zelda: Skyward Sword preview, "the series' consoling familiarity provides a brilliantly successful blueprint that Nintendo endlessly toys with to deliver that 'surprise' Miyamoto always cites as his creative goal." It has demonstrably worked for Nintendo and more recently for Ubisoft. More of the same is fine - if it's the same as something brilliant.

Either way, it's something we're going to have to get used to. With the next generation of consoles just around the corner, development costs are only going to climb and recycling will be more common than it is now.

But it needn't be a bad thing. There's enough evidence that recycled content can be a force for good rather than just a cynical way of squeezing more money from a hungry fanbase; it all depends on how it's used. Oh, and if in doubt - don't add zombies.

Comments (36) Latest comment 7 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • cussers #1 7 months ago

    It's not so much dlc that I'm against per se. It's just that it's all so short. Average playtime for dlc's what? 3 hours? For someone who grew up with proper expansion packs that would last me ages, it's depressing that we just don't see these anymore. Instead it feels like we have to pay every single bloody extra mission. And it's aggravating to see such a retrograde step become so accepted.

    The gaming press have raised not a peep about the replacement of expansions by something clearly worse, and why? Because they don't pay.
  • coomber #2 7 months ago

    (Very good point, cussers.)

    Good read, although I'd take Chris up on his comment about Yakuza. Some of us fans are definitely sick of Kamarucho......though I'm looking forward to seeing it destroyed by zombies next year :-)
  • subjectxen #3 7 months ago

    @cussers I agree, it would be interesting to see how a critic's opinion would change if they had to shed out the cash themselves for games and DLC. Would certainly get them thinking about value for money.
  • metalangel #4 7 months ago

    It is, as cussers says, not so much recycling as it is charging so much for it! The only expansions that have been worth any money have coincidentally been ones to get proper disc releases of their own (GTA4 Episodes, Undead Nightmare, Shivering Isles, Fallout 3)

    Still, nobody forces you to buy it/they're a business not a charity/they deserve more money morons will infest this place and tell us we should be grateful to even have games.
  • TheNonk #5 7 months ago

    There's a fine line between planned DLC designed to expand a universe and raise profit margins to a point where a game becomes more financially viable and cutting out chunks of what should have been there to begin with just to artificially raise the price of a game.
  • RawNinjaKid #6 7 months ago

    Resident Evil 5: Gold Edition has all the "DLC" content in one disc.
    I bought it last year for £11.99, definitely the most economical purchase of this generation!
    As good and original the DLC content was (and it was pretty vast), I don't think any of them were worth a separate download.

    I think I prefer Nintendo's recycling: especially if Majora's Mask and Super Mario Galaxy 2 are the results!!
    Edited by RawNinjaKid at 29/10/11 @ 10:49
  • Doncommie #7 7 months ago

    Gearbox expansions were particularly excellent? They were awful! Even before talking about the terrible balance or cookie cutter missions you have stuff like Robot Revolution reusing the same boss three times and the same old enemies with some metal stuck to them!
  • erv #8 7 months ago

    Timesplitters comes to mind.

    "hey a new console? Timesplitters: awesome edition?" "Nah, let's make a brown grey 'cool' game with no distinguishing features whatsoever on a console that is expensive to develop for!"

    Result: bankruptcy.

    I'm all for original content, but I'm more for quality games. Marry the two and I'll buy like the happiest kid alive (little kings story, no more heroes) but reclycling generosity is bad. That being said, perfecting awesomeness is welcome too...
  • subjectxen #9 7 months ago

    @Doncommie General Knoxx is one of the best expansions money can buy.
  • Lunastra78 #10 7 months ago

    Well they do say that games are getting increasingly more expensive to make. So if the choice stands between paying more for new games and having the option of buying some money-grabbing DLC, I'd choose the DLC.

    For certain of my favorite games I'd even go as far as buying a bit of DLC to support the developer. I did it for Dead Space 1&2, because I felt the games sold less than they should. And I would have done the same for Demon's Souls and Amnesia for example, if they had provided that option.
  • The-Jack-Burton #11 7 months ago

    Even Battlefield 3's SP was just series of repeating corridors, dressed to look different. It's a weird space developers currently find themselves in; is it about the art of game design or is it about squeezing every last penny out of the game. Making games is a business and in order to sustain a business you must generate revenue. But with all of these flash, and incredibly expensive, marketing campaigns, it is quickly becoming less about the quality of the game and more about generating enough hype to get a predetermined quota of day one purchases.
  • Alex_V #12 7 months ago

    I don't see recycling assets as a problem at all, and I'm not sure this article really makes any sort of case for it being one.

    But I do see recycling the same concepts and gameplay ideas incessantly as the curse of modern gaming.
  • Kanjin #13 7 months ago

    'mobile and social gaming are the biggest new market drivers'

    Excuse me I'm going to go slit my wrists now.
  • nnepveu #14 7 months ago

    Some recycling should be done. He mentions Zelda, which I would say is one the strongest arguments for this point. Zelda games (except for Majoras Mask) follow basically the same format with little changes or enhancements. No matter which one you pick, they are a silent hero, quirky characters, semi-open world, dungeons where you get a key item so you may access a previous inaccessible area, rescue princess and even the last guy is usually the same. However, not many people ever get sick of it.

    Often times I love a game because how it plays and I simply want more. Assassins creed is great example. They all are very similar (except for 1 i would argue), but make little adjustments and refinements. If you know how to play AC2, you could probably play revelations. That is great! If I loved AC2, why would I want them to make dramatic changes?

    DLC is a mixed bag. The DLC available for COD and many other games are simply gold seeking. However, some are well done and seriously enhance the games they are attached to. ME2 had excellent DLC that expanded the game, but in no way were important for campaign (except for the last one, which is decidedly the worst). What pisses me off is content limited to those who purchased the game from certain vendors or preordered. ME2 was guilty of this with its various weapons and armor packs available only to those who preordered from GameStop or what not.
  • Nanocrystal #15 7 months ago

    Point Lookout is still my favourite piece of DLC. Large, varied, with original assets, genuinely interesting missions (one of which even led you back into the main game) and a whole different atmosphere from F3. I probably spent about 20 hours on it, so excellent value to boot.
  • makeamazing #16 7 months ago

    I really liked the Fallout 3 DLC's... but having played over 60 hours of that... when i got to new vegas the re-used content was just too much for me, especially as the engine had not progressed and actually things looked worse.

    I've not got round to playing DR:oTR yet, but i am happy to play a game with similar content, depending on the number of hours i've put in, but what fixes they do to make the game better... as i haven't played that much on DR2 i think i will be ok. BUT... if a game doesn't move its engine/story forward, i don't think it matters how much new looking content you throw at it...

    As for Assassins Creed, i can keep playing new ones of those till the cows come home, because the combination of story and new content/mini missions make it worthwhile.
  • WeakOrbit #17 7 months ago

    Dead Space Severed is a prime example of reused content. Bar the new plot and pretty much re-skinned Isaac it's go from Point A to Point B which is pretty much a flipped and shortened version of the main games path with zero new enemies or weapons bar amped up classics.

    Rockstar's undead nightmare is the perfect example of DLC by taking the game world and flipping it on it's head which sadly much people seem to view as too high risk though the recent Infamous2 expansion seems to of taken a leaf from their book. Epic's new DLC for Gears will be interesting though with the ability to play as Raam and Valves upcoming Portal map editor's whole point is to reuse assets, only it's you in control.
  • mqblank #18 7 months ago

    Awesome article. Agree with the Nintendo part about 2 quick follow-up games turning into 2 of the greatest games to emerge from the company. Majora's Mask for 3DS please Mr Miyamoto.
  • ajaxpliskin #19 7 months ago

    Doesn't bother me, it's all about gameplay.
  • dirtysteve #20 7 months ago

    It's always been a part of gaming. Reskinning and pallette swaps are practically enshrined in the classics, from Mortal Kombat to WoW.
    Where I get bored is exactly where the author suggests, when you get things like DLC which offer no real incentive to go back to a finished game.
    That, and of course lazy sequels.
  • apoc_reg #21 7 months ago

    Stalker series does it well
  • stryker1121 #22 7 months ago

    More egregious than re-using assets for DLC is assets that are re-used in game proper, w/ Dragon Age 2 being the most recent and most infamous example. I also agree w/ Cussers point that drip-feed DLC is a bigger problem in the industry. There was NO reason the DLC for Alan Wake, for example, could not have been put into the main game- a title that had been in the works for five years no less.
  • Mister-Wario #23 7 months ago

    Would anyone quibble over buying three different versions of Street Fighter IV if they knew their money was the difference between Capcom producing an SFV and abandoning the series permanently?
    Yes, I would. How much does each consecutive version cost, and how much is added to each version? If I was interested in fighting games I'd wait until the best version was released, and if that ultimately meant a sequel wasn't made, tough luck. That'll teach you to treat your customers as gullible sheep.
  • KanePaws #24 7 months ago

    It's not so much dlc that I'm against per se. It's just that it's all so short. Average playtime for dlc's what? 3 hours? For someone who grew up with proper expansion packs that would last me ages, it's depressing that we just don't see these anymore. Instead it feels like we have to pay every single bloody extra mission. And it's aggravating to see such a retrograde step become so accepted.

    Quote for truth! The only way they'll go away, though, is if people stop buying them. It's not that hard, everyone (dlc is almost never a good deal)!

    But, who am I kidding? Half the people who read this will probably be spending some single digit number on a new outfit for a character in a fighting game, or for one map in a shooter. Never have we paid so much for so very, very little. :\
  • shotgun44 #25 7 months ago

    Ona slightly relevant note, does anyone know if the new Saints Row uses a carbon copy of the last city or is somewhere completely new?
  • digitalash #26 7 months ago

    No mention of Telltale? Their entire business model is built around recycling assets.
  • kongzi #27 7 months ago

    It's not the recycling that's the problem, every other form of entertainment recycles assets, storylines, characters, riffs and whatnot. The main problem the games industry has right now is a lack of creativity. Or not being able to get that creativity out there or something. I think that's caused by the way it's structured around the developer -> publisher model, it's not that the people working aren't creative.

    Another major problem here is the price (also tied in to this structure). Every game has to be the same price, but they're not the same quality. It doesn't make sense.. that's why a lot of games can drop 50% or more in price in just a couple of weeks on the market. They are being overvalued. We need cheaper games. If a small studio has to sell their fps at the same price as the battlefields and cod's, they'll never compete.

    I think where possible (any story driven game) you'll see a move towards more episodic formats. GTA episodes did it well and my hunch is that GTA5 will take that idea even further to point of not having one main character anymore.
  • orpheus #28 7 months ago

    Surprised (and a little disappointed) to see this article fudge 're-use of game assets' and DLC into the same argument.

    Re-use of assets for DLC makes sense to a degree (same game world etc); the divide between creating a worthwhile expansion because it benefits the game and making a shit one because it'll pad your wallet is another argument altogether.

    Re-use of assets (in the sense initially made in the article) of releasing sequels over new IPs is indicative of both an unwillingness in developers/publishers to take the financial risk of a new IP, and of a general trend towards decreasing creativity/innovation in big-budget game design in general.

    The latter points are deserving of some real investigative journalism, and are what I was expecting from the article headline. Can't help but think I'd probably have enjoyed reading about them more too - this feature doesn't really say anything.


    I'm sure Chris is lovely though.:redface:
  • Dangher #29 7 months ago

    All hail newest trend - get a game that you don't own (online distribution) and keep paying through the nose for the privilege of playing it (online pass). Reusing assets? Seriously? MW3? DR2? All of COD? Need I go on?

    I think the problem is inherent in the actual medium itself. I mean the consoles. It is much easier to reuse proven workable tech, than gamble on the one-off chance that the 10-year old hardware MIGHT be able to run this "new bling we created".
  • Red930 #30 7 months ago

    What about BF3 then? I see assets from BC2, BF2 and even a couple of redressed huts from 1942 in there. The sounds are clearly sexed up BC2, the weapons are redressed BF2/BC2 - its almost as if the only thing they have actually redone is the lense flair. Playing BF3 is a little like playing all the past DICE games rolled into one but with a texture upgrade. Generate a landmass, use old assets, throw in some sounds from your last game and pretend you have been developing it for five years. Fuck off. Good game tho.
  • arbok #31 7 months ago

    i was sick of kamurocho by the second game!

    the entire PGR3 game was in PGR4, there's basically only one new showpiece track in Forza 4.

    its a freaking disgrace - id rather they spend an extra year coming out with more new content rather than rehashing the same stuff all the time. It's all bloody business decisions!
  • Ironic_War_Criminal #32 7 months ago

    The thing about fighting games is they work somewhat like Madden or FIFA where fans want new updates to it's roster and balance but want to keep the core gameplay the same, especially in Japan. Thats why there are updates and no company is immune to it, be it Arc Sys, SNK or Capcom (Also the practical element of having disc copies for tournaments. It's not unusual for some community members to have 3 or 4 disc copies of the same game "Just in case". DRM prevents you doing that with DLC). Updates are necessary to keep the game fresh and familiar and in a lot of modern cases, the feedback has allowed companies to design characters around metagames and strategies players have found out while giving a re-tune to characters in the previous iteration. It's worked over the years and fans of the genre are used to it.

    It's not going to stop entitled nerds unfamiliar with the genre to scream how much they are being fucked about because companies should be giving them everything for free or delaying games for months to release the content (The re-introduction of fighting games to the mainstream has also been a significant culture shock since it's a significantly different culture to mainstream VG culture), but theres a reason why those invested in the genre will tell someone to fuck off if they complain about a significant update to a game like Marvel Vs Capcom 3 in such a small time frame. It's not the shortest time frame for a major update (Street Fighter III to SF3: 2nd Impact holds the record with 6 months), but it's one made with significant player input and content and even with the short time frame, it's a worthy purchase to them because of the amount in that.

    Not that they wont call out bad business practices either. Arc Systems has been raked over the coals by their own fanbase across the world for trying to pass off a pretty terrible BlazBlue update with only one new character as worth $40/£25 and there is a general worry of going back to the bad old days where every company had to shove out revisions every six months to hold onto precious arcade floor space (And still do. Sega went through around 10 different revisions of Virtua Fighter 5 and are still going), even though it's through consoles. But at the same time, games like UMvC3 have been made with significant community input and there is a general feel of the process getting better. So while those unfamiliar with the genre will gnash their teeth and claim that companies are "Fucking them" in some sort of ridiculous manner, those familiar with it will simply carry on as they like. They put in hundreds of hours into the previous game, the new one is a refresh and value for money for them.
  • epiazk #33 7 months ago

    Expansion packs were awesome by comparison. Throne of Bhall :o
  • Farzlepot #34 7 months ago

    All I can think about when it comes to DLC is Horse Armour.

    Give me expansion packs like Half-Life: Opposing Force or SiN: Wages of SiN any day of the week. Literally three developers have delivered worthwhile DLC that resembles the expansions of old this gen - Rockstar, Bethesda and to a lesser extent, Bioware.

    And ironically, one of those devs came up with Horse Armour!
  • Hxy3000 #35 7 months ago

    @shotgun44 It's a completely different city.
  • erp #36 7 months ago

    Monster Hunter deserves a mention too for its judicious asset re-use not only across games but across platforms as well. Yet it remains brilliant in spite of it - maybe even because of it? - and it's clearly not done its popularity any harm either.

    (Personally I feel the MH games veer towards a little too much re-use myself, but I think they remain an interesting case study nonetheless.)