Jimquisition: A Game By Any Other Name
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There are not too many *survival* horror games out there so fans being disgruntled about that silent hill game being something entirely action-y is understandable.
Imagine a re-boot of dungeon keeper but instead of being a, you know, dungeon building sim (there are just fucking none of those out there nowadays), it is an action rpg or a squad based dragon age 2 esque... thing.
Same principle applied to X-com.
I don't think fans associating a brand with certain gameplay is strange at all.
Nor is it strange for fans to get high strung if their, in these days, rare preferred type of gameplay gets changed into something completely different that appeals to a "broader audience".
If you get a final fantasy or zelda game, you don't expect an egoshooter.
As for the DMC thing, it's a silly outrage but has little to do with the topic at hand since they don't seem to deviate from the devil may cry genre gameplay with that one at all.
Imagine a re-boot of dungeon keeper but instead of being a, you know, dungeon building sim (there are just fucking none of those out there nowadays), it is an action rpg or a squad based dragon age 2 esque... thing.
Same principle applied to X-com.
I don't think fans associating a brand with certain gameplay is strange at all.
Nor is it strange for fans to get high strung if their, in these days, rare preferred type of gameplay gets changed into something completely different that appeals to a "broader audience".
If you get a final fantasy or zelda game, you don't expect an egoshooter.
As for the DMC thing, it's a silly outrage but has little to do with the topic at hand since they don't seem to deviate from the devil may cry genre gameplay with that one at all.
I agree with this. The only exception to the rules I could see is if the game is heavily story driven (or has a unique universe) and the spinoff game would just shit all over it with loopholes or whatever.
A direct sequel to The Fifth Element! Yay!
Canonical indeed.
All joking aside, Jim makes a strong case as usual.
Only thing is... fan is short for FANatic (really).
Combine this with the general human fear of change (the unknown), and you can easily explain all the fanboy pre-hate on changes/new directions.
Not that it makes the whining any less excruciatingly stupid, but still... it's good to keep in mind and quickly ignore the rabid ramblings!
Canonical indeed.
All joking aside, Jim makes a strong case as usual.
Only thing is... fan is short for FANatic (really).
Combine this with the general human fear of change (the unknown), and you can easily explain all the fanboy pre-hate on changes/new directions.
Not that it makes the whining any less excruciatingly stupid, but still... it's good to keep in mind and quickly ignore the rabid ramblings!
I am getting so sick of gamers acting so damn entitled as if they own an certain IP and as if they should have a say in what direction developers take with a franchise, without even experiencing the new concepts. Just striking down things on sight, complaining and demanding it going back to the old roots without even trying the new fresh take. Even after this video people still complain in the comments dear god.
Fuck yeah. DMC looks fucking awesome, silliness and over the top and all the jazz. The haters can whine all they like, they'll probably buy it and like it anyway.
The only time I got ticked off about a game being different than it's predecessor was Syndicate. I for one would have preferred a RTS, not some mediocre stupid ass shooter. Though if the shooter was actually good, I might have a different opinion.
The only time I got ticked off about a game being different than it's predecessor was Syndicate. I for one would have preferred a RTS, not some mediocre stupid ass shooter. Though if the shooter was actually good, I might have a different opinion.
This episode really got me meditating on my own feelings about games such as DmC, the new Silent Hill Games, hell, even the newest Final Fantasy games. People hating on a sequel, spin-off, or remake because it wasn't exactly like what came before it is a tradition that has seemingly existed since the dawn of entertainment and it doesn't look like it's going anywhere. But how far can a creator change a franchise before you might as well call it something different?
I think the biggest issue with drastically changing a franchise while keeping the same name is that it often reeks of corporate cash-in. While I am all for franchises evolving and trying different things (Wind Waker, Final Fantasy VII, Mario RPG, just to name a few) I think that a lot of these drastic changes to well established franchises come as a result of the developer's desire to try something different and the publisher's reluctance to stray away from name recognition.
I think the biggest issue with drastically changing a franchise while keeping the same name is that it often reeks of corporate cash-in. While I am all for franchises evolving and trying different things (Wind Waker, Final Fantasy VII, Mario RPG, just to name a few) I think that a lot of these drastic changes to well established franchises come as a result of the developer's desire to try something different and the publisher's reluctance to stray away from name recognition.
Fun factoid time: Halo was originally intended as an RTS Game. If fact:Scrumpmonkey said:
"Bungie Studios later stated an even earlier development build of the game centered on real-time strategy and was "basically Myth in a sci-fi universe."" <url=http://web.archive.org/web/20041012021413/http://www.bungie.net/Inside/CustomPage.aspx?section=History&subsection=Main&page=6>(Source). Halo Wars was merely the revival of an old concept...and actually wasn't that bad (when you've played Stormrise, you KNOW how much worse it could have been).
OT: I side with Jim, to a degree. As you pointed out with X-COM and Syndicate, sometimes a Publisher prints whatever name they want on it as a marketing gimmick. Of course, said gimmick nine times out of ten backfires <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt39TNCpRTg>(BEEETRAYAAAAAL! Anyone?), so I think this point can be debated back and forth.
Though I should point out this is nothing new, and even goes back to around/slightly before the turn of the century, and that it's really the expansion of the internet that makes the trend more noticeable...and annoying in many cases.
Small tangent here, but over the years it's become something of a common occurrence that any game series that attaches a pseudo-biblical subtitle to their game (Revelations, Reckoning, Genesis, ect) is sending off gigantic whirling sirens and klaxons that are telling you it's going to be a painful experience for everyone involved.
Back on point, the DMC thing struck a cord with me. The reason I dislike it is simply because it's a reboot. The game looks like a blast to play, don't get me wrong, and I have every intention of playing it, but I do have a fondness for the older iterations of the characters of that series. Campy and ridiculous as they pretty much constantly were, they were enjoyable to see in action and many times I found myself playing through the stages simply motivated by a desire to see what kind of crazy cutscene the level would end with. And this being a reboot means, at least to me, that we will no longer see these characters we've previously grown attached to. It feels that this new Dante is a different person, replacing the old one. And the cast of colorful characters we're familiar with are just gone now, replaced with an unfamiliar world. We're gaining something, but it feels like we're losing something too, and unnecessarily so.
Now, if it weren't a Devil May Cry game and was instead renamed to something else entirely, that would leave the door open to more adventures with the cast we know, and still allow the new characters a chance to shine on their own. As it is now, the fanbase is split between those that see the game as a replacement and the end of the characters from the previous series, and those that are willing to give the game a go regardless.
Back on point, the DMC thing struck a cord with me. The reason I dislike it is simply because it's a reboot. The game looks like a blast to play, don't get me wrong, and I have every intention of playing it, but I do have a fondness for the older iterations of the characters of that series. Campy and ridiculous as they pretty much constantly were, they were enjoyable to see in action and many times I found myself playing through the stages simply motivated by a desire to see what kind of crazy cutscene the level would end with. And this being a reboot means, at least to me, that we will no longer see these characters we've previously grown attached to. It feels that this new Dante is a different person, replacing the old one. And the cast of colorful characters we're familiar with are just gone now, replaced with an unfamiliar world. We're gaining something, but it feels like we're losing something too, and unnecessarily so.
Now, if it weren't a Devil May Cry game and was instead renamed to something else entirely, that would leave the door open to more adventures with the cast we know, and still allow the new characters a chance to shine on their own. As it is now, the fanbase is split between those that see the game as a replacement and the end of the characters from the previous series, and those that are willing to give the game a go regardless.
No one understands the pros and cons of this idea better than a fan of Final Fantasy. On the one hand, yes, you'd miss some great experiences if you avoided anything too different from the past. On the other, there are more than a few games that just toss in a chocobo or moogle and think that should be enough to be called Final Fantasy,
Unlike sequels, spin-offs can be very exploitive in their existance. Fans get irate because we see DMC or the new Silent Hill, not as things meant to appeal to the fans, but things re-named or re-skinned in order to make a quick buck off fans that buy on the name, and impartialness goes out the window. And in fairness, it's not as though it's unearned fear. If anything, it's the next evolution from the days whre things like The Simpsons, Ninja Turtles, or comic characters were slapped into (often bad) games on the fly to spur sales. I won't say the fear is entirely rational, , but it's easy to assume the games aren't going to be that good and are just leaching off the name to have any credibility.
Unlike sequels, spin-offs can be very exploitive in their existance. Fans get irate because we see DMC or the new Silent Hill, not as things meant to appeal to the fans, but things re-named or re-skinned in order to make a quick buck off fans that buy on the name, and impartialness goes out the window. And in fairness, it's not as though it's unearned fear. If anything, it's the next evolution from the days whre things like The Simpsons, Ninja Turtles, or comic characters were slapped into (often bad) games on the fly to spur sales. I won't say the fear is entirely rational, , but it's easy to assume the games aren't going to be that good and are just leaching off the name to have any credibility.
Yeah, that example's really my only quibble with Jim's argument. The original Syndicate was renowned as one of the greatest RTS games of its era. So why would you bother resurrecting a property with that pedigree as just another run-of-the-mill FPS? All you do is piss off the fans of the original, while offering nothing special to sell it to new customers.MonkeyPunch said:
Otherwise, I'm all for spin-offs in different genres. E.g., if either of the two big space opera settings out there right now, Halo or Mass Effect, were to bring back the mid-90s space combat sim as a $15 downloadable spin-off title on XBLA/PSN/Steam/etc., that would be awesome.
Exactly. And thats why people hate a games name being used in this fashion. A series is a series because of the way the gameplay is. I mean, imagine if the next doom was suddenly a RTS. Oh, it will have space marines and demons but still a RTS. THATS NOT WHAT A DOOM GAME IS.MB202 said:
I think there is a difference between an inevitable sequel being shit and a dead franchise reinventing itself. I love GTA IV, it is my favourite game in the franchise, in part because it is a departure from previous titles. If GTA V opts to go down a San Andreas/Saints Row route of cartoon violence and absurdity over the somber tone of IV I reserve the right to be fucked off. Conversely if they make a sequel to Street Racer (SNES and possibly Mega Drive/Genesis) and it is shit I would be dissapointed but not fucked off as such. The next iteration in the franchise was not inevitable so I will not feel I have lost out or had my hopes dashed.
That's my problem with the latest Silent Hill games, and this one too, they don't have their own personality, and are just using fan nostalgia to get people interested. I will give Downpour credit for trying, and I will give the funny ending kudos for being weird and making me laugh, but for the rest of the game it did nothing for me. I don't care if it's a spin-off, and good on them for trying something different, but I just don't care anymore.Casual Shinji said:
OT: I have nothing against the new Devil May Cry and I really want to play it. It might be because I've never played one before, and I don't have context for the changes, but it looks pretty bitchin'.
Even though the video hit a little too close for comfort, I agree with most of it. I really think some fans just need to chill out, and thank God he didn't bring up the Final Fantasy fans. That would've been messy.
I agree with you in principle Jim, a good game is a good game. But you miss a few points.
One of the reasons people often want games that are similar to previous games in the same franchise is that they really loved those games but many games have not aged well at all. For example, I didn't enjoy Warcraft 3 at all, and I dont play MMORPGs so WoW did nothing for me. So my only recourse as a huge warcraft-fan is going back to playing a 17 year old game that has such a low resolution that I can hardly see 10 units at the same time. This is the case with many complaints about sequels that veer away from the formula.
I didn't become a Syndicate-fan because I liked generic shooters, I became a fan because I really enjoyed that style of Action-tactical-RPG set in a dystopic cyberpunk-environment. But when discussing this on various forums I was often told that if I didn't like the game I should just go back and play the original and keep my mouth shut, but the thing is that I can't can I?Syndicate is virtually unplayable today because of its old graphics and difficulties of getting it to run on old hardware. The reason I was upset that the new Syndicate was an FPS was that I WANTED an updated version of the old game. Same goes for X-com (where we thankfully will get an updated version of the old game).
These are extreme examples but even games just 6+ years old often has not aged well at all. For every Zelda: Wind Waker that is as beautiful today as when it was released there are 10 Knights of the old Republic 2 that feels almost unplayable today due to bad graphics and old UI. (dont get me wrong, I enjoy old games as much as any gamer that has been around since pre-nes times, but some earlier 3D-games have REALLY not aged well. A game like FF6 does not feel as aged as FF7 for example).
As for DMC I just think it looks like a crappy game and the way Ninja Theory has handled this whole New-Dante-affair just puts the nail in the coffin. Also I havent liked any of Ninja Theorys games so far, Enslaved was nice but the combat was super-boring and Heavenly Sword was just stupid and bad. So I dont think they will somehow magically revitalize DMC, but I may be wrong.
One of the reasons people often want games that are similar to previous games in the same franchise is that they really loved those games but many games have not aged well at all. For example, I didn't enjoy Warcraft 3 at all, and I dont play MMORPGs so WoW did nothing for me. So my only recourse as a huge warcraft-fan is going back to playing a 17 year old game that has such a low resolution that I can hardly see 10 units at the same time. This is the case with many complaints about sequels that veer away from the formula.
I didn't become a Syndicate-fan because I liked generic shooters, I became a fan because I really enjoyed that style of Action-tactical-RPG set in a dystopic cyberpunk-environment. But when discussing this on various forums I was often told that if I didn't like the game I should just go back and play the original and keep my mouth shut, but the thing is that I can't can I?Syndicate is virtually unplayable today because of its old graphics and difficulties of getting it to run on old hardware. The reason I was upset that the new Syndicate was an FPS was that I WANTED an updated version of the old game. Same goes for X-com (where we thankfully will get an updated version of the old game).
These are extreme examples but even games just 6+ years old often has not aged well at all. For every Zelda: Wind Waker that is as beautiful today as when it was released there are 10 Knights of the old Republic 2 that feels almost unplayable today due to bad graphics and old UI. (dont get me wrong, I enjoy old games as much as any gamer that has been around since pre-nes times, but some earlier 3D-games have REALLY not aged well. A game like FF6 does not feel as aged as FF7 for example).
As for DMC I just think it looks like a crappy game and the way Ninja Theory has handled this whole New-Dante-affair just puts the nail in the coffin. Also I havent liked any of Ninja Theorys games so far, Enslaved was nice but the combat was super-boring and Heavenly Sword was just stupid and bad. So I dont think they will somehow magically revitalize DMC, but I may be wrong.