next »

[Graham-]

You can't say that at all. If 1 person doesn't buy an indie metroidvania b/c he "just played one like that," that is a signal of saturation. The existence of this thread indicates 1 such person exists.

You can tell a bad joke once, get a laugh, and be out of runway. Tell it again and you'll be annoying. Everything saturates. Either find a new audience or a new joke.

If you are an indie trying to make it it is important to understand what people want and what they are tired of. Even if you're going for free you want people to play.

[aberrantmind]

They'd fall under money isn't a factor for them which is really the best place to be for an Indy.

who? I'm sure there're a-lot of indies who are making Metroidvania styled games who DO plan to sell them.

you're coming in to part of a conversation without taking in the context. go back and re-read the thread

[aberrantmind]

Saturation is only an issue if you are trying to make money.

So from a consumer stand point: no such thing as too much. Unless you've become jaded with the genre in which case whatever, firstworldproblem.

From a developer who needs to sell their thing: saturation can definitely be a problem. obviously.

From a purely creative standpoint: why is this even a question? just develop what you want to.

[Graham-]

well. it depends if you want an audience. sometimes the creator creates for feedback, or the knowledge of having an impact. when I tell a joke I'm definitely doing it to hear other people laugh. sometimes it's just for fun, but usually it's to make others happier.

[Keops]

When I make a game I dream about I don't really care about market saturation and what-not. Like aberrant said, for a creative this is a non-issue.

I'm still not entirely sure we have reached saturation in this genre even if you say that the very existence of this thread means that is a fact. Any numbers behind that claim?

It's like saying because x game exist and sold 50k copies, if I make y game in the same genre I'm going to sell 50k copies, but if two or more games come out in the same genre, each is going to sell 25k? Now think about 10 or more games in the same vein...

What happens in the case of FPS games? Call of Duty, Battlefield, each sells millions, and I could say that the market is saturated but they reiterate the same game, over and over again and still sell millions. Maybe you can argue that a new up and coming game dev operation (or an indie, for that matter) tries to create a FPS game (unrealistically, because competing with increasing marketing budgets of AAA titles is not feasible), logically will not sell millions, but that doesn't mean the market is saturated. Unless I have my definition very wrong.

What I mean, is most gamers operate on a budget, and not in a set amount of games to buy. This gets more complicated when we factor things such as price or special promotions (like bundles, etc.)

[Graham-]

didn't read the post, keops. thread indicates a _sign_ of saturation. maybe millions of signs needed.

if you said the fps market is saturated you'd be wrong, if you can still make a living in it. tho, if you consider, competing with "mainstream" fps would kill you. call of duty's win is generally battlefield's loss. they are direct competitors.

so if you want an fps you'd better do something new. only a fool would compete with the big boys on a tiny budget. that's why smaller fpses are diff. in some big way.

any gamer plays games. he gets tired of certain things. are "X" in? I don't know. but if they aren't you'll sell less. people will care less. you'll get smaller exposure. you'll build a weaker team for your next project off the first's release.

saturation means, "you'll sell less because user's desires are already partially satiated." it is not about numbers. it is about user opinion.

[gimymblert]

market saturation is not uniform, it's a king of the hill situation, with 90% of markethold by a small number of kings and the rest to other, the problem is that competing against the king is costly and risky, so you go big or you go VERY small. And to beat a king it's not enough to be better, you must literally outperform and send the king to non relevant state ... which mean innovating in a way that sway the market. The thing is that innovation is not necessarily tied to cost! Finding this innovation is "mostly" random, that's why you need to diversify and experiment a lot in case you produce anomaly like minecraft. Notice that product that does (arguably) better than minecraft are not able to outperform it yet, because they are still in minecraft shadow and don't diversify enough. If something, clone tend to reinforce the king position by emulating it and underlining its relevance.

[Graham-]

that product that does (arguably) better than minecraft are not able to outperform it

I dare you to show me one example. Then I'll choose not to look at the link, and smugly think to myself, "no one understands why Minecraft succeeded."

just b/c you prefer a game does not make it better. you have to think harder than that.

[gimymblert]

That's an example, that's why I use "arguably" in parenthesis. It could be say for almost any genre with a king. There is diversification but they expend on the king identity, not replace it, that's why mario is still the king fps, and mario kart, etc ...

[Graham-]

*shrug* it sounds like you're saying kings aren't actually better than the rest.

[gimymblert]

Not always. If they have define a genre and other are minor iteration, they are not going to trump the king. You need MAJOR iteration, most new king have major iteration that change the identity enough for the audience.

[Graham-]

yeah

[Keops]

Ok, but in the case of Metroidvanias, I don't see either saturation or a "King of the hill" title. This is probably just because this is a niche market inside a niche type of game (Indie/hobbyist games).

What was the last successful commercial Metroidvania? The DS Castlevanias? Even in the Indie front I don't know which was the latest successful game in the genre. So I would say there's quite a bit of scarcity. Many projects in the indie game dev community, probably 80% of them will never be released or completed.

@graham: Oops, you're right, I did misread your post. Sorry. You make valid points, and I'm glad to be able to have these interesting discussions with someone... Not a single person (aside from my wife, but only sometimes) around me wants (or cares) to talk gaming with me

[Graham-]

I don't know anything about Metroidvanias in particular. I just know saturation.

I don't play a lot of indie games. I'm more of a AAA brute.

[Oskuro]

I know this is a very obvious thing to say, but genre saturation is not a problem if the game has something new to offer, even within it's genre conventions.

Take, for example, the stir caused by Spec-Ops: The Line. It is as close to AAA modern shooter conventions as you can get, and it still managed to be unique and memorable through it's story (which I haven't played yet and I'm trying hard to avoid spoiling).


So called "Metrodivanias" (I never like the monicker) can be deceptively unique. Of the few I've played, each has been memorable through a combination of game mechanics, graphics, level design and story.

To name a few I fondly remember, compare the uniqueness of games like Super-Metroid, Cave-Story, Poacher or Aquaria.

They are all, by all definitions, firmly planted in the style, but anyone claiming that, for example, Aquaria is "just another metroidvania" needs to be slapped with a fish.


In short, the question here shouldn't be "Are there too many Metroidvanias?" but rather "Are there too many shitty Metroidvanias?".

[Graham-]

well.... a "market" is defined by what is the same in it. so if something is different enough to stand out from the games causing saturation then it isn't in the same market.

yeah, shitty metroidvanias, or better said, metroidvanias that may or may not be shitty but hug the metroidvania conventions too snuggly.

[Keops]

But then again, rephrasing the question to "Are there too many shitty Metroidvanias?" wouldn't just trivialize the discussion? Basically it could apply to any genre or medium (movies, comics, literature, etc). Pretty much anything can be made memorable if the characters are interesting, if the graphics are nice, if the music and ambiance are spot on, if production values are amazing...

However I do get your point too, but I'm afraid it kinda makes discussion irrelevant at this point.

At any rate, any good and recent (2010 and up) Metroidvanias you played lately?

[aberrantmind]

A discussion of are there too many shitty whatevers just opens a road that leads to elitist bs.

Here's a better question(and by better I mean more interesting and productive):

* what Metroidvanias actually pushes the boundaries or innovates while still staying true to the genre?

[Graham-]

well, he's more taking a jab i think

this is the question: "are games being hurt by their tendency to follow metroidvania conventions too closely (when they are metroidvanias)"

[aberrantmind]

well, he's more taking a jab i think

this is the question: "are games being hurt by their tendency to follow metroidvania conventions too closely (when they are metroidvanias)"

that's like asking does cloning a game hurt the genre. I don't think it does. It's very useful thing to clone a game, it's like studying classics. And not pushing the genre is not hurting it.