| firebush03 said: This is a hard one for me. On the one hand, I’d much rather have my hands on the next 3D Mario over Nintendo Labo… but on the other hand, new IP is what leads to fresh, new ideas that push the industry forward. Without it, we would never see the likes of Pikmin during the GCN nor Splatoon during the Wii U. So… where do you stand? |
@bold: I know what you mean by this, but I think it's wrong. I've written about this before on the forum; the newness of an IP doesn't necessary translate to anything innovative. Look at Breath of the Wild, Donkey Kong Bananza, Yoshi and the Mysterious Book, etc. These all belong to properties that have been around for 35-45 years but they're so different and inventive that they could easily pass as new IPs, if it wasn't for the familiar characters and backdrops. And then look at some other publishers, who drop a new protagonist and setting into a tried-and-true gameplay loop and call it a day. That's certainly a new IP, but apart from its storyline it's not really moving the needle in terms of new ideas.
Of course, there are plenty of new IPs that do both. Some of my favorite games of the last 10 years feature never-before-seen worlds and bold new ideas: Cult of the Lamb, Sakuna: Of Rice and Ruin, Shujinkou, The Hundred Line: Last Defense Academy, Dave the Diver, Spiritfarer, CrossCode, Blue Prince, Pacific Drive, Balatro, etc.
But, then again, a bold idea can also be a bad idea. And a safe, iterative sequel can be vastly superior to a new IP filled with ambitious, novel mechanics that simply don't work.
Which is why this is such a tough question to answer. There are so many ways that creators can approach both categories.
