Jimquisition: A Game By Any Other Name
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I disagree Jim. The reason is simply that a the idea of producing a series is to create very similar products. The idea of the shared name, is that they are pretty much the same thing, you buy a series or franchise because you want more of the same. If you want something differant, then you buy something differant, a differant series/franchise.
Older games still existing doesn't really mean much in terms of a defense. The point of those that complain is they want more of what those older games were, but with storylines/events/levels/etc... they hadn't seen before, and of course the newer technology. A "real" fallout fan, wants his turn based, heavily stat based, isometric RPG, because that's the kind of game that he enjoys. You see bitterness in a lot of fanbases when you see entire genres of games being basically ignored, with franchises being changed to be pretty much what everyone else is doing. When is the last time you've seen an "A" level, never mind "AAA" level stat based, isometric, single player, turn based RPG for the PC? The answer is that it has been a bloody long time, because none of the major developers produce them anymore (though some Indie developers do from time to time). Despite some people screaming that such games are "antiquidated" there are millions and millions of people who still want them, which leads to the substantial fringe of people who actually take it so far as complaining on the internet. The changes to series like "Fallout" were done to make them more profitable to a larger group of people who want the first person/shooter type perspective and stats to not be so much of a focus of the game. You might not have seen the rage that still exists over the transition, at least not to the same extent, had people been producing games like "Fallout" for those people.
Defending radical changes as "spin offs" and such is really only possible when the core series/experience is still thriving. Ditto for defenses about the existance of specific types of games. It wouldn't be a big deal if we saw the industry living up to it's potential and producing enough differant types of games (old and new style) for all types of gamers, but that isn't what we see, we see people playing "follow the leader" based on whatever happens to be the biggest potential avenue to make money at the moment. Nobody is willing to content themselves with a fair profit by continueing to cater to niche audiences, and those people are understandable get upset when they have a hard time finding quality games of the type they want to play that aren't years, or even as much as a decade, old.
To put this in the context of "Silent Hill" you seem to miss the connection between the simple fact that there hasn't been a real game in the core "Silent Hill" franchise in years. You just say "they are crap" but the bottom line is those games are crap is because all of them have been trying to be action games to "make it more popular" which have continued to backfire with the core audience. A common accusation being that the series has been suffering due to the developers mishandingly the property and trying to make it into something it's not, for the sake of hopefully grabbing more sales from action gamers who would be attracted to the funky combat mechanics and such. "Book Of Memories" is pretty much an extension of the problem, being pretty much a straight combat game, which looks like a cross between "Diablo" and "Gauntlet". That might be a cool idea for a spin off, IF the central survivial horror franchise was thriving and had remained true to it's roots and fanbase. The fans would be more accepting of things if they had been producing good "Silent Hill" games.
"Silent Hill" is one of those rare cases where the average Fanfiction seems to be better, and capture the essence of the series, more than the actual games being released. It's a situation where the developers (as there have been several groups of them) really need to pay attention to what the fans have been saying, instead of slipping their leashes and running off in their own direction. Normally I'd agree that fans/fanfics/etc... are something a developer can't pay much attention to if they want to product a solid product, but this is one of the cases that represents an exception to that rule.
To put things into perspective, many years ago the now defunct "Origin systems" released a couple of spin off series to their popular "Ultima" games. "Ultima Underworld" (switching from isometric, party based gameplay, to single character, 1st person gameplay), and "World Of Ultima" (using the Ultima characters and mythology in some off kilter settings, with the usual... for the time... engine). These worked, and got sequels, because the central franchise had remained true to it's roots, was seeing regular releases, and had everyone satisfied at the time. It was easy to get behind those games when you had Ultima 6 and Ultima 7 as the springboards so to speak. Right now, Silent Hill doesn't have fans as happy as they were with Ultima 6 or 7 to be experimenting and expect the fans to embrace it.
All of that aside, the typical problem people are complaining about is an entire change of genere while keeping the name intact. "How would you feel about cell shading Killzone" isn't really a problem since that's just a change in graphics, not in the style of game. If they were to say released an interactive historical biography about the life of Ghandi and call it "Killzone" for the sake of marketing, it wouldn't matter if it was the most awesome work of it's kind and taught you more about Ghandi than anything ever before... despite the name it's something totally differant than what you as a series fan want more of. There is no real connection to it being "Killzone" other than the name, heck even the purpose (teaching about pacifism and selling it through perhaps it's greatest proponent) is at odds with what attracted you to the series. If the defenders of the game sold it as "well, it works because there has always been an anti-war message in Killzone, and Ghandi fought against what he saw as a militant, totalitarian society, just differantlt than what we saw in the game so far. The title can also be applied to the 'Killzone' Ghandi found himself in during his final moments. Really, this is the same thing you've been playing all along, we just felt the series needed to move on, and grow up with the times. Other companies are making interactive movies, and movie critics are complaining about the "unreality" in the media, so we figured this is the right step for the series..."... do you think you'd agree with them? It's an extreme example, but it's actually similar to what people are complaining about with other video game titles.
In short, if you have an amazing game idea, that is differant than what existing franchises are doing, then by all means make it, but start a new franchise for it. If for some reason a franchise is failing, don't radically change everything abotu it, just retire it (at least for a while) instead of say deciding "X-com is now going to be a first person shooter" (which thankfully they gave up on). Turning "Silent Hill" into an action-RPG (and I like action RPGs) is utterly stupid at this step of the game, maybe if they had a good 2-3 games in the series in recent memory/release such a spin off could warrent some cool points, but right now they need to work on getting their basics on track, not bringing everything people hate about the recent games to the forefront.
Older games still existing doesn't really mean much in terms of a defense. The point of those that complain is they want more of what those older games were, but with storylines/events/levels/etc... they hadn't seen before, and of course the newer technology. A "real" fallout fan, wants his turn based, heavily stat based, isometric RPG, because that's the kind of game that he enjoys. You see bitterness in a lot of fanbases when you see entire genres of games being basically ignored, with franchises being changed to be pretty much what everyone else is doing. When is the last time you've seen an "A" level, never mind "AAA" level stat based, isometric, single player, turn based RPG for the PC? The answer is that it has been a bloody long time, because none of the major developers produce them anymore (though some Indie developers do from time to time). Despite some people screaming that such games are "antiquidated" there are millions and millions of people who still want them, which leads to the substantial fringe of people who actually take it so far as complaining on the internet. The changes to series like "Fallout" were done to make them more profitable to a larger group of people who want the first person/shooter type perspective and stats to not be so much of a focus of the game. You might not have seen the rage that still exists over the transition, at least not to the same extent, had people been producing games like "Fallout" for those people.
Defending radical changes as "spin offs" and such is really only possible when the core series/experience is still thriving. Ditto for defenses about the existance of specific types of games. It wouldn't be a big deal if we saw the industry living up to it's potential and producing enough differant types of games (old and new style) for all types of gamers, but that isn't what we see, we see people playing "follow the leader" based on whatever happens to be the biggest potential avenue to make money at the moment. Nobody is willing to content themselves with a fair profit by continueing to cater to niche audiences, and those people are understandable get upset when they have a hard time finding quality games of the type they want to play that aren't years, or even as much as a decade, old.
To put this in the context of "Silent Hill" you seem to miss the connection between the simple fact that there hasn't been a real game in the core "Silent Hill" franchise in years. You just say "they are crap" but the bottom line is those games are crap is because all of them have been trying to be action games to "make it more popular" which have continued to backfire with the core audience. A common accusation being that the series has been suffering due to the developers mishandingly the property and trying to make it into something it's not, for the sake of hopefully grabbing more sales from action gamers who would be attracted to the funky combat mechanics and such. "Book Of Memories" is pretty much an extension of the problem, being pretty much a straight combat game, which looks like a cross between "Diablo" and "Gauntlet". That might be a cool idea for a spin off, IF the central survivial horror franchise was thriving and had remained true to it's roots and fanbase. The fans would be more accepting of things if they had been producing good "Silent Hill" games.
"Silent Hill" is one of those rare cases where the average Fanfiction seems to be better, and capture the essence of the series, more than the actual games being released. It's a situation where the developers (as there have been several groups of them) really need to pay attention to what the fans have been saying, instead of slipping their leashes and running off in their own direction. Normally I'd agree that fans/fanfics/etc... are something a developer can't pay much attention to if they want to product a solid product, but this is one of the cases that represents an exception to that rule.
To put things into perspective, many years ago the now defunct "Origin systems" released a couple of spin off series to their popular "Ultima" games. "Ultima Underworld" (switching from isometric, party based gameplay, to single character, 1st person gameplay), and "World Of Ultima" (using the Ultima characters and mythology in some off kilter settings, with the usual... for the time... engine). These worked, and got sequels, because the central franchise had remained true to it's roots, was seeing regular releases, and had everyone satisfied at the time. It was easy to get behind those games when you had Ultima 6 and Ultima 7 as the springboards so to speak. Right now, Silent Hill doesn't have fans as happy as they were with Ultima 6 or 7 to be experimenting and expect the fans to embrace it.
All of that aside, the typical problem people are complaining about is an entire change of genere while keeping the name intact. "How would you feel about cell shading Killzone" isn't really a problem since that's just a change in graphics, not in the style of game. If they were to say released an interactive historical biography about the life of Ghandi and call it "Killzone" for the sake of marketing, it wouldn't matter if it was the most awesome work of it's kind and taught you more about Ghandi than anything ever before... despite the name it's something totally differant than what you as a series fan want more of. There is no real connection to it being "Killzone" other than the name, heck even the purpose (teaching about pacifism and selling it through perhaps it's greatest proponent) is at odds with what attracted you to the series. If the defenders of the game sold it as "well, it works because there has always been an anti-war message in Killzone, and Ghandi fought against what he saw as a militant, totalitarian society, just differantlt than what we saw in the game so far. The title can also be applied to the 'Killzone' Ghandi found himself in during his final moments. Really, this is the same thing you've been playing all along, we just felt the series needed to move on, and grow up with the times. Other companies are making interactive movies, and movie critics are complaining about the "unreality" in the media, so we figured this is the right step for the series..."... do you think you'd agree with them? It's an extreme example, but it's actually similar to what people are complaining about with other video game titles.
In short, if you have an amazing game idea, that is differant than what existing franchises are doing, then by all means make it, but start a new franchise for it. If for some reason a franchise is failing, don't radically change everything abotu it, just retire it (at least for a while) instead of say deciding "X-com is now going to be a first person shooter" (which thankfully they gave up on). Turning "Silent Hill" into an action-RPG (and I like action RPGs) is utterly stupid at this step of the game, maybe if they had a good 2-3 games in the series in recent memory/release such a spin off could warrent some cool points, but right now they need to work on getting their basics on track, not bringing everything people hate about the recent games to the forefront.
The fact that DMC will be locked into 30 fps rather than the franchise staple of 60 fps will be a big deal for the game. In fast paced games like that and Ninja Gaiden it is more or less a necessity.
Wohay! Jim being wrong for an episode was just a one-off! 
I also don't remember him saying "Thank god for me" last episode where it, coincidently, was the only one I have ever disagreed with.
I told a guy not a day ago to stop winging after he questioned 343i over Halo 4: "What have they done to halo? :'( I miss bungie" he moaned.
I told him this:
I also don't remember him saying "Thank god for me" last episode where it, coincidently, was the only one I have ever disagreed with.
I told a guy not a day ago to stop winging after he questioned 343i over Halo 4: "What have they done to halo? :'( I miss bungie" he moaned.
I told him this:
- I just don't get people ragging on about changing franchises; I'm all for evolution and innovation unless it's for the worse *cough* Command and Conquer 4 *cough*. Otherwise we'll just have the same bloody games over and over again with no real change. What's the fucking point in Halo 4 if it's just going to be Halo 3, or 2? What's the point in TESV if it's an overlay of Oblivion?
Ehhhh....
....
...
..
.
I think I disagree this time. Because I still remember the letdown of hearing a new Shadowrun game was coming out...and then finding out it was an multiplayer-only FPS. But that wound is healed now, all thanks to this [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1613260297/shadowrun-returns].
But yeah...I'm of the opinion that if they want to take a series in a radically different direction (not like the difference between Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker, but more like the aforementioned Shadowrun difference), they should just make it a different franchise. Why? Well, had the 2007 Shadowun actually been popular, would I still be able to look forward to Shadowrun Returns coming in the near future? Probably not.
....
...
..
.
I think I disagree this time. Because I still remember the letdown of hearing a new Shadowrun game was coming out...and then finding out it was an multiplayer-only FPS. But that wound is healed now, all thanks to this [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1613260297/shadowrun-returns].
But yeah...I'm of the opinion that if they want to take a series in a radically different direction (not like the difference between Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker, but more like the aforementioned Shadowrun difference), they should just make it a different franchise. Why? Well, had the 2007 Shadowun actually been popular, would I still be able to look forward to Shadowrun Returns coming in the near future? Probably not.
Disagreeing post
Games can be more than just a clever collection of gameplay mechanics and innovative settings. Games have the potentional to be worlds that we escape into, a coherent story, with not just a "player avatar" and "NPCs", but PEOPLE living their lives and having adventures, with not just settings and levels, but towns and empires and planets, with histories that we care about.
That there are fandoms, that look at games like this, is one of the most beautiful things about our community. There is nothing like staring at the screen after the credits roll, wondering what happened with our heroes after that, then hyping up the sequel where we hope to find out.
A fandom is a group of people who take a given game seriously. If you say that what they want from a franchise doesn't really matter, that as long as a random user happens to get gratification from playing a game (because it has decent controls, graphics, etc,) it's already good enough, you are saying that games shouldn't be taken seriously. That they are just utilitary tools that need to be well-crafted, with a purpose of keeping our eyes and fingers and minds busy for the moment, but not something that we should care about, identify with, or have expectations from on the long term.
Games can be more than just a clever collection of gameplay mechanics and innovative settings. Games have the potentional to be worlds that we escape into, a coherent story, with not just a "player avatar" and "NPCs", but PEOPLE living their lives and having adventures, with not just settings and levels, but towns and empires and planets, with histories that we care about.
That there are fandoms, that look at games like this, is one of the most beautiful things about our community. There is nothing like staring at the screen after the credits roll, wondering what happened with our heroes after that, then hyping up the sequel where we hope to find out.
A fandom is a group of people who take a given game seriously. If you say that what they want from a franchise doesn't really matter, that as long as a random user happens to get gratification from playing a game (because it has decent controls, graphics, etc,) it's already good enough, you are saying that games shouldn't be taken seriously. That they are just utilitary tools that need to be well-crafted, with a purpose of keeping our eyes and fingers and minds busy for the moment, but not something that we should care about, identify with, or have expectations from on the long term.
I'm disappointed in you Jim, as you seem to have skipped out on any research regarding the DMC outcry. Complaints about Dante's looks were only a part of it, but the more rabid complaints were about how the new DMC completely fucked over story and character related facts established in the previous games, completely missing the point of certain aspects of these things.
Ninja Theory's narcissistic leader didn't help either. It's no longer canon though, so I no longer have any qualms with it. I mean, I don't have any issues with games going a different direction either (in fact, I'd like it when they do), but it shouldn't fuck things up about an already established story or it should be made/seen as a spin-off. And neither of these was the case with the new DMC (until recently, as the result of the fan outcry).
Ninja Theory's narcissistic leader didn't help either. It's no longer canon though, so I no longer have any qualms with it. I mean, I don't have any issues with games going a different direction either (in fact, I'd like it when they do), but it shouldn't fuck things up about an already established story or it should be made/seen as a spin-off. And neither of these was the case with the new DMC (until recently, as the result of the fan outcry).
I agree with the gist of Jim's critique, but I disagree with a HUGE part of it as well. How much do I disagree? Let me count the ways.
"What's in a Name?" - Jim says that names don't matter. They do. There are games out there whose names actually hold meaning to us. Not everyone will feel that way. I'm sure Jim is one of them who can distance himself from certain franchises. But for many people, names like "Star Wars", "Pearl Harbor", "The Dark Knight", "Halo", "Zelda", "9-11", "Silent Hill", "ICO", "Watchmen", "D-Day", etc. all carry with them something more than a name. Names are more than that. They contain meaning, memories, and even statements about life. When I think of "Silent Hill", I don't picture the f-bomb spewing, blood-and-guts, Pyramid Head-cameoing SH: Homecoming... I picture scenes such as Lisa's tragic fate in SH1, Angela's stairs of fire in SH2, Heather's return home in SH3, and Henry's hospital visit to Eileen in SH4. Moments filled with gut-wrenching emotion that can absolutely devastate a grown man or woman... and those feelings, those experiences, are culminated in a single name: "Silent Hill". It becomes something fondly remembered and more than just a name. So while, to Jim, a new game is just a game, and it could be called anything, people are protective of things that matter to them. It would bother me greatly to see "Shadow of the Colossus" turned into Duke Nukem-esque FPS with boobies and poop jokes, but at the same time I bet Duke Nukem fans would hate a Duke Nukem game that was a serious point-and-click adventure game all about solving mysteries and solving math puzzles.
"A Name Brings Expectations" - Fair or not, the name of a brand evokes expectations and also appeals to the aspects of the brand that fans remember most fondly. A new Batman movie would automatically evoke feelings for the caped crusader, clad in black, terrorizing the criminals of a depraved Gotham City. You wouldn't think "I'm sure it's going to be a hilarious romantic comedy" upon hearing the name Batman. Similarly, a game like "Silent Hill" has a pedigree that is insanely high, what with SH1 and SH2 considered some of the greatest horror games, and even games, of all time. Those games shattered expectations, matured the entire medium of gaming, and left a long shadow over the entire genre that many would agree has not been surpassed in over a decade of gaming. When a new game, or spin-off game, takes those very same elements that were praised for their nuance, sophistication, intelligence, and emotional impact and nullifies them with sweeping changes (such as taking a main villain, Pyramid Head, a very personal embodiment of a specific character's traumatic and repressed psyche, and making him a generic enemy in a hack-and-slash dungeon crawler).
"It's Sometimes Good to Challenge Expectations" - Sometimes. There are many great transitional games that defy gamer fears. Metroid Prime is one of the most beloved games of all time, despite turning a 2D side-scrolling shooter into a 3D first-person adventure game. Fallout 3 somehow managed to thrive, despite basically being a Fallout skin of Elder Scrolls IV. Metal Gear Solid and Street Fighter II were both so radically different and popular that people barely even remember there WERE games before those entries. But... for every success, there are at least three times as many failures. For every Metroid Prime, there is an Other M. For every Street Fighter II, there is a Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game. For every Fallout 3, there's a Syndicate. Fans have every reason to be worried. Until the game is proven to be a success, let them worry. History has not favored taking beloved franchises and retooling them into something new. There are exceptions, but they're just that: exceptions.
"Even a Good Spin Can Be Rejected" - Wind Waker is one of the best Zelda games ever made, aesthetics be damned. Almost nobody will refute that. But... the art style they chose, that radical, bold, expressive cel-shaded look that was lauded by many critics, was still ultimately far less popular than the realistic styles employed by Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess. It endured on the hand-helds for awhile, but after Wind Waker, the style reverted back to a more mature look on consoles. It wasn't bad; but fans just never got around to embracing it. Some did, of course. Many did not. Even Zelda II wasn't a bad game, but it's all but a footnote in Zelda game history now since fans didn't embrace its many changes.
The same could be said for good changes that backfired, such as Dragon Age 2's streamlined approach to combat and roleplaying. On paper, it sounded like an improvement over DA: Origins in every regard, but it was an inferior game with less likable characters, a less interesting story, bland art and graphics, inferior dungeon and world design, less player choice and customization, and little evolution of the core concepts that Dragon Age: Origins did so well. Or Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts, which is NOT a bad game at all, but nobody asked for a car-based Banjo-Kazooie game and nobody really wanted one either. It could be the best racing game ever, but it's not what fans were demanding. Which leads me to...
"Alternatives Are Great... If the Original Games Still Thrive" - Metroid Prime debuted alongside Metroid Fusion, both of which were great games with different takes on the Metroid formula. We were getting spin-off handheld Zelda games doing bold new things while the console versions appeased the hardcore players. Mario himself is king of the spin-offs, but we can count on him to deliver a proper Mario experience too.
But for many games, there are no alternatives if you were a fan of the older style. So you were a fan of the old-school Resident Evil games that were strictly survivor horror with an emphasis on puzzle-solving and exploration? Too bad. The series is chiefly an action-title now. Are you a fan of Silent Hill's fog-encroached nightmare world of isolation, psychosis, and absolutely brilliant nuance and subtlety? Too bad. The series is in Western hands that think that blood, multiplayer, gunplay, sexy nurses, and Pyramid Head cameos are the true heart of the series. Did you like the exploration, speed-running, isolation, and puzzle-solving of Super Metroid and Metroid Prime? Too bad. Other M makes you go where it wants, is nearly impossible to speed-run, throws a bunch of characters into the mix, and puts all the emphasis on story and ADD action. Did you like well-written, turn-based Final Fantasy games that thrived on exploring, airships, player customization, and player freedom? You won't find much of that here; go play Xenoblade instead.
Mainly, fans of the older games have no alternatives. The types of games they fell in love with are disappearing, homogenizing, and they simply don't have an alternative. And, well, they complain, and rightly complain, because they don't want the spirit of the OLD games to disappear.
If you're a fan of Resident Evil 2... where can you go to play a game like like that? If you're a fan of the original Syndicate,where can you find one that plays like that? If you're a fan of Dead Space 1, is it wrong to prefer isolation over constant multiplayer chatter and to let EA know this?
Lastly...
"A Return To Form is Often Appreciated" - For every Halo: Reach fan, there's a purist out there that swears by Halo 1's pistol. For every fan that Twisted Metal 3 pushed away, Twisted Metal: Black reclaimed. For everyone disappointed in Super Mario Sunshine's lack of platforming, there was TWO Super Mario Galaxy games to appease them... and New Super Mario Bros. for those that were more old-school that THAT. For every fan of 3D Castlevania games, there was a thriving and passionate 2D following on handhelds. Resident Evil: Revelations was the most well-received horror-themed RE game since the Gamecube remake of RE1. Devil May Cry 3 was basically an apology for DMC2 and a return to DMC1's sensibilities. Is it any surprise that the most traditional Sonic game in 20 years, Sonic Generations, is considered the best modern Sonic game? X-Com: Enemy Unknown is getting FAR better press and fan reception than the FPS XCOM. Over and over, we see games that go back to their roots, the ones gamers loved, and embracing them or improving them, and the old fans of old re-investing into the series that they were becoming jaded with due to weird tangent directions and awkward business-led spin-offs.
The games of the past had their own identities pretty much stamped in stone. Over the years, those identities have been slowly erased, either by diluting the brands, milking the franchises, or slapping on popular game titles to games that in no way, shape, or form actually benefit from doing so.
So, "What's in a Name"? An identity. A persona. An experience. An expectation. A desire. Meaning. Purpose. Fulfillment. A good name is one that can take decades to create, but can be destroyed in one single blow. It is both a games' greatest strength and strongest critic. It tells us what a game IS, what it's about, who it's for, and what we hope to glean from buying it and playing it. To misuse that name, to radically alter that name's meaning, is to either be bold in a new direction or to gamble with the integrity of your brand in the hopes that the name alone will carry your title to success.
But a good name is one that is well-earned... and carries the expectations of decades of good-will. That is not something to ignore lightly.
So, yes, a game like "Metroid: Other M" would be a very solid, if forgettable, game by any other name, but it is now part of a franchise where "good" was never good enough, whose games are often listed among the greatest of all time, and whose heroine is a staple of a strong, powerful, independent woman in gaming... so when it fails to live up, or when it flat-out fails in general, it's a far more enraging incident than if another generic shooter with generic gameplay has a generic ending with its generic characters. The more you emotional invest in a series, often because it's good, the more emotional you become when it fails to deliver.
Mass Effect 3's original ending is a prime example. In a generic game, nobody would care. But it wasn't a generic game. It was ME3. The finale of a series of games lauded with awards, praised by critics, awash in high sales, and beloved by legions of gamers who were drawn in and addicted to its lore, depth, and trend-setting, forward-thinking roleplay approaches. A bad end to a bad game is forgettable; a bad end to a great series whose name meant something to you over several years is another.
"What's in a Name?" - Jim says that names don't matter. They do. There are games out there whose names actually hold meaning to us. Not everyone will feel that way. I'm sure Jim is one of them who can distance himself from certain franchises. But for many people, names like "Star Wars", "Pearl Harbor", "The Dark Knight", "Halo", "Zelda", "9-11", "Silent Hill", "ICO", "Watchmen", "D-Day", etc. all carry with them something more than a name. Names are more than that. They contain meaning, memories, and even statements about life. When I think of "Silent Hill", I don't picture the f-bomb spewing, blood-and-guts, Pyramid Head-cameoing SH: Homecoming... I picture scenes such as Lisa's tragic fate in SH1, Angela's stairs of fire in SH2, Heather's return home in SH3, and Henry's hospital visit to Eileen in SH4. Moments filled with gut-wrenching emotion that can absolutely devastate a grown man or woman... and those feelings, those experiences, are culminated in a single name: "Silent Hill". It becomes something fondly remembered and more than just a name. So while, to Jim, a new game is just a game, and it could be called anything, people are protective of things that matter to them. It would bother me greatly to see "Shadow of the Colossus" turned into Duke Nukem-esque FPS with boobies and poop jokes, but at the same time I bet Duke Nukem fans would hate a Duke Nukem game that was a serious point-and-click adventure game all about solving mysteries and solving math puzzles.
"A Name Brings Expectations" - Fair or not, the name of a brand evokes expectations and also appeals to the aspects of the brand that fans remember most fondly. A new Batman movie would automatically evoke feelings for the caped crusader, clad in black, terrorizing the criminals of a depraved Gotham City. You wouldn't think "I'm sure it's going to be a hilarious romantic comedy" upon hearing the name Batman. Similarly, a game like "Silent Hill" has a pedigree that is insanely high, what with SH1 and SH2 considered some of the greatest horror games, and even games, of all time. Those games shattered expectations, matured the entire medium of gaming, and left a long shadow over the entire genre that many would agree has not been surpassed in over a decade of gaming. When a new game, or spin-off game, takes those very same elements that were praised for their nuance, sophistication, intelligence, and emotional impact and nullifies them with sweeping changes (such as taking a main villain, Pyramid Head, a very personal embodiment of a specific character's traumatic and repressed psyche, and making him a generic enemy in a hack-and-slash dungeon crawler).
"It's Sometimes Good to Challenge Expectations" - Sometimes. There are many great transitional games that defy gamer fears. Metroid Prime is one of the most beloved games of all time, despite turning a 2D side-scrolling shooter into a 3D first-person adventure game. Fallout 3 somehow managed to thrive, despite basically being a Fallout skin of Elder Scrolls IV. Metal Gear Solid and Street Fighter II were both so radically different and popular that people barely even remember there WERE games before those entries. But... for every success, there are at least three times as many failures. For every Metroid Prime, there is an Other M. For every Street Fighter II, there is a Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game. For every Fallout 3, there's a Syndicate. Fans have every reason to be worried. Until the game is proven to be a success, let them worry. History has not favored taking beloved franchises and retooling them into something new. There are exceptions, but they're just that: exceptions.
"Even a Good Spin Can Be Rejected" - Wind Waker is one of the best Zelda games ever made, aesthetics be damned. Almost nobody will refute that. But... the art style they chose, that radical, bold, expressive cel-shaded look that was lauded by many critics, was still ultimately far less popular than the realistic styles employed by Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess. It endured on the hand-helds for awhile, but after Wind Waker, the style reverted back to a more mature look on consoles. It wasn't bad; but fans just never got around to embracing it. Some did, of course. Many did not. Even Zelda II wasn't a bad game, but it's all but a footnote in Zelda game history now since fans didn't embrace its many changes.
The same could be said for good changes that backfired, such as Dragon Age 2's streamlined approach to combat and roleplaying. On paper, it sounded like an improvement over DA: Origins in every regard, but it was an inferior game with less likable characters, a less interesting story, bland art and graphics, inferior dungeon and world design, less player choice and customization, and little evolution of the core concepts that Dragon Age: Origins did so well. Or Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts, which is NOT a bad game at all, but nobody asked for a car-based Banjo-Kazooie game and nobody really wanted one either. It could be the best racing game ever, but it's not what fans were demanding. Which leads me to...
"Alternatives Are Great... If the Original Games Still Thrive" - Metroid Prime debuted alongside Metroid Fusion, both of which were great games with different takes on the Metroid formula. We were getting spin-off handheld Zelda games doing bold new things while the console versions appeased the hardcore players. Mario himself is king of the spin-offs, but we can count on him to deliver a proper Mario experience too.
But for many games, there are no alternatives if you were a fan of the older style. So you were a fan of the old-school Resident Evil games that were strictly survivor horror with an emphasis on puzzle-solving and exploration? Too bad. The series is chiefly an action-title now. Are you a fan of Silent Hill's fog-encroached nightmare world of isolation, psychosis, and absolutely brilliant nuance and subtlety? Too bad. The series is in Western hands that think that blood, multiplayer, gunplay, sexy nurses, and Pyramid Head cameos are the true heart of the series. Did you like the exploration, speed-running, isolation, and puzzle-solving of Super Metroid and Metroid Prime? Too bad. Other M makes you go where it wants, is nearly impossible to speed-run, throws a bunch of characters into the mix, and puts all the emphasis on story and ADD action. Did you like well-written, turn-based Final Fantasy games that thrived on exploring, airships, player customization, and player freedom? You won't find much of that here; go play Xenoblade instead.
Mainly, fans of the older games have no alternatives. The types of games they fell in love with are disappearing, homogenizing, and they simply don't have an alternative. And, well, they complain, and rightly complain, because they don't want the spirit of the OLD games to disappear.
If you're a fan of Resident Evil 2... where can you go to play a game like like that? If you're a fan of the original Syndicate,where can you find one that plays like that? If you're a fan of Dead Space 1, is it wrong to prefer isolation over constant multiplayer chatter and to let EA know this?
Lastly...
"A Return To Form is Often Appreciated" - For every Halo: Reach fan, there's a purist out there that swears by Halo 1's pistol. For every fan that Twisted Metal 3 pushed away, Twisted Metal: Black reclaimed. For everyone disappointed in Super Mario Sunshine's lack of platforming, there was TWO Super Mario Galaxy games to appease them... and New Super Mario Bros. for those that were more old-school that THAT. For every fan of 3D Castlevania games, there was a thriving and passionate 2D following on handhelds. Resident Evil: Revelations was the most well-received horror-themed RE game since the Gamecube remake of RE1. Devil May Cry 3 was basically an apology for DMC2 and a return to DMC1's sensibilities. Is it any surprise that the most traditional Sonic game in 20 years, Sonic Generations, is considered the best modern Sonic game? X-Com: Enemy Unknown is getting FAR better press and fan reception than the FPS XCOM. Over and over, we see games that go back to their roots, the ones gamers loved, and embracing them or improving them, and the old fans of old re-investing into the series that they were becoming jaded with due to weird tangent directions and awkward business-led spin-offs.
The games of the past had their own identities pretty much stamped in stone. Over the years, those identities have been slowly erased, either by diluting the brands, milking the franchises, or slapping on popular game titles to games that in no way, shape, or form actually benefit from doing so.
So, "What's in a Name"? An identity. A persona. An experience. An expectation. A desire. Meaning. Purpose. Fulfillment. A good name is one that can take decades to create, but can be destroyed in one single blow. It is both a games' greatest strength and strongest critic. It tells us what a game IS, what it's about, who it's for, and what we hope to glean from buying it and playing it. To misuse that name, to radically alter that name's meaning, is to either be bold in a new direction or to gamble with the integrity of your brand in the hopes that the name alone will carry your title to success.
But a good name is one that is well-earned... and carries the expectations of decades of good-will. That is not something to ignore lightly.
So, yes, a game like "Metroid: Other M" would be a very solid, if forgettable, game by any other name, but it is now part of a franchise where "good" was never good enough, whose games are often listed among the greatest of all time, and whose heroine is a staple of a strong, powerful, independent woman in gaming... so when it fails to live up, or when it flat-out fails in general, it's a far more enraging incident than if another generic shooter with generic gameplay has a generic ending with its generic characters. The more you emotional invest in a series, often because it's good, the more emotional you become when it fails to deliver.
Mass Effect 3's original ending is a prime example. In a generic game, nobody would care. But it wasn't a generic game. It was ME3. The finale of a series of games lauded with awards, praised by critics, awash in high sales, and beloved by legions of gamers who were drawn in and addicted to its lore, depth, and trend-setting, forward-thinking roleplay approaches. A bad end to a bad game is forgettable; a bad end to a great series whose name meant something to you over several years is another.
Ninja Theory is the developer. They actually do good work, such as Heavenly Sword and Enslaved.SpaceBat said:
Team Ninja is the Japanese team responsible for Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball, Ninja Gaiden 3, and Metroid: Other M...
... I'd rather have Ninja Theory working on it than Team Ninja.
Seems a lot of people are making this mistake.ForgottenPr0digy said:
Yeah. If Other M was a game by any other name, it would be quickly forgotten and ignored. But it wasn't just any other game. It was a Metroid game. Apart of a beloved series. And it undermined two decades worth of bold, forward-thinking ideas that Metroid pioneered and set the entire franchise back with its backward view towards its heroine, its regressed exploration and puzzle-solving, and it's maddening desire to be a movie (and a bad one) instead of a ground-breaking new entry to a universally beloved franchise.MB202 said:
What a waste.
Oh crap, fixed. My apologies, I sometimes unintentionally mix up the two companies. I know, I'd rather have Ninja Theory work on it as well, as Enslaved was a pretty damn good game and a lot better than anything Team Ninja has ever done.Trishbot said:
But again, my point still stands. I agree with what Jim's saying, but I disagree with his use of DMC, as the new one did use to mess with the other games due to it changing certain (quite important) aspects of and facts about the characters and the story.
I love how some people have ripped DMC5 apart yet said jack shit about DMC4, proberly the laziest AAA game ive ever played.
Seriously that game was lame, Dante was still hilarious as always but...
Also I liked number 2, not the way they kept trying to make Dante take himself so seriously but the bosses, those were bloody good fights.
Seriously that game was lame, Dante was still hilarious as always but...
Also I liked number 2, not the way they kept trying to make Dante take himself so seriously but the bosses, those were bloody good fights.
Jim seems to address the question with a willful ignorance. People who say they'd like it more if a game had a different title aren't saying the title detracts from the game. They're saying the the game detracts from the title. It's still a potentially dumb sentiment in how it's based on having a restrictive view of what defines a given intellectual property, but being upset over newer entries missing the tone of a series is more understandable than liking something less because it happens to be based on something else you liked more, and it is possible to enjoy something, while still feeling as if it missed the intended point of the work that inspired it. It just kind of seems like Jim is twisting words to make this into an easier argument to win.
