The logic behind the rage for the "alienation" of Videogame series.

[SweetShark]

Many times in the past and of course now recently, we saw many Videogame series get alienate for many different reasons.
Some developers say they wanted to try to make the series more darker and more serious that the previous games [Bomberman Zero], some others said they wanted to tell a different story than the original had [Devil May Cry 2012], some others wanted to change the gameplay entirely and make it a different style of game [Xcom 2012, the FPS], etc, etc...

When something like that happen, many people start rage to the developers for not trying to make the make like the original.
They rage for the new look of the main character, they rage for complete change of the gameplay, they rage for some tiny details that maked the game unique and the list go on...

With that said.....
Why we don't see this kind of rage in some other Videogames that they as well changed a lot from the original games?

Why for example they didn't raged about the Doom 3? Doom 3 is a very good example of alienation of the original game. Doom 3 have a different look, the monsters doesn't exacly the same, diffeent type of action, the horror elements etc, etc...
But yet, the fan of the series [like me] didn't make it something so serious that believed it will "murder" the series.

Another example is Resident Evil 4. Seriously, the developers make the biggest alienation and stick with it in the others titles cause it had success. They made the Resident Evil series from a pure horror series, to a Fast-Third Person-Action B-movie series.
But again, never I saw a serious negative reaction for this game.

Of course there are many, MANY examples I can say [The Anime like Lost Planet, Metal Gear Solid Card game, etc...], but why we see this rage in specific games and not in some other game even they clearly changes a lot of things?

 

[Dandark]

Sometimes people get mad, sometimes they dont? If it's done well then a fanbase can be accepting of it, Lost planet 3 looks like it's changing it's gameplay to be more survival horror like and as far as I know there hasn't been much rage. I am a fan of the series and im quite happy with them doing it even though I loved Lost planet 2.

With some things people get annoyed, especially when it's to "Broaden the appeal" or "Attract a larger audience" since this usaully means streamlining it into a military shooter. For example many people are annoyed and raging at Dead space 3 for just becoming part of that extremely small and unique genre(Sarcasm) that is third person action cover based shooter.

Sometimes people get annoyed when it feels like they are being betrayed because the developer wants to try and go for Cod level sales. There was much rage about Crysis 2 over this kinda thing.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

I guess with the new technlogoy, the try to advance the game, like with Doom 3 they kept it as an FP, just gave it better graphics.

Games like Silent Hill fans rage at, because the developers seem to keep missing the point for some reason

 

[Sixcess]

a new take on a series is most likely to be accepted if the original series is technically obsolete - sprite based enemy hordes in Doom, fixed camera/pre-rendered backdrops in RE, or isometric rpgs in Fallout. People didn't resent breaking away from the old styles as much because the old styles in those cases were already effectively dead.

I say 'as much' because there are still people who consider each of the games I've mentioned as being not true to the series that spawned them.

On the other hand when a series like Syndicate gets reinvented as an FPS then all that's happening is that an existing genre that's still alive albeit undersupported (team based tactical shooter) is being discarded in favour of a genre that's an absolute glut on the market (FPS.)

Games companies love franchises - and spend a ton of money trying to build new ones. Why? Because franchises will sell based on the name, on the loyalty of existing players, and I've little tolerance for this tiresome argument that all games should innovate, because if I'm going to pick up Halo 4 the likelihood is that I'm doing so because I liked Halo 1 to 3 and would like more of the same, only (preferably) more polished.

This is also a reason why many fans of Tomb Raider (fun action adventure in exotic locations) are reacting badly to the grim 'n gritty reboot that looks anything but fun. Really, I don't pick up a Tomb Raider game because I want a gritty exploration of psychological distress and a heroine that's scared of everything. I pick up a Tomb Raider game because I want to visit exotic locations and shoot dinosaurs.

A dev who drifts too far away from the expectations of the fans of the series will alienate a large part of their audience, and tough luck on them. You can have the big budget, high profile PR and guaranteed sales of an existing franchise, OR you can have absolute creative freedom. Most of the time, you can't have both.

 

[Zhukov]

a new take on a series is most likely to be accepted if the original series is technically obsolete - [...] or isometric rpgs in Fallout. People didn't resent breaking away from the old styles as much because the old styles in those cases were already effectively dead.

Freeze! Nitpick police!

Fallout 3 being 3D and first person actually pissed off quite a few people. Hell, you can still find folks moaning about it to this day.

 

[Bertylicious]

a new take on a series is most likely to be accepted if the original series is technically obsolete - [...] or isometric rpgs in Fallout. People didn't resent breaking away from the old styles as much because the old styles in those cases were already effectively dead.

Freeze! Nitpick police!

Fallout 3 being 3D and first person actually pissed off quite a few people. Hell, you can still find folks moaning about it to this day.

Van Buren would have been ace, man. Way better than Fallout 3 was.

WAAAAHHH!

I think the Metal Gear franchise is an interesting one to contemplate for this. MGS1 was amazing. MGS2 was good but a bit weird. MGS3 was objectively rubbish (it really was) but fans loved it up the bum. The rest of the series was inscrutable but adored by fans.

It's the opposite scenario where the franchise grows inferior but the fanbase more devoted.

From that I reckon it all comes down to perceived sincerity of the creators. If they are perceived as sincere by the fanbase then they will embrace a change of direction.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Oh you people and exaggerations...

Anyway if people come in to your restaurant for the steak dinner then there is probably something they like about it, and if you plop down some tofu replacement next time they come... well you might get some complaints.

 

[SweetShark]

Sometimes people get mad, sometimes they dont? If it's done well then a fanbase can be accepting of it, Lost planet 3 looks like it's changing it's gameplay to be more survival horror like and as far as I know there hasn't been much rage. I am a fan of the series and im quite happy with them doing it even though I loved Lost planet 2.

With some things people get annoyed, especially when it's to "Broaden the appeal" or "Attract a larger audience" since this usaully means streamlining it into a military shooter. For example many people are annoyed and raging at Dead space 3 for just becoming part of that extremely small and unique genre(Sarcasm) that is third person action cover based shooter.

Sometimes people get annoyed when it feels like they are being betrayed because the developer wants to try and go for Cod level sales. There was much rage about Crysis 2 over this kinda thing.

I must say I don't mean Lost Planet 3. Capcom actually created an Anime Theme Lost Planet that plays like Monster Hunters series:

Spoiler

I am very surpriced that didn't see a reaction for this game.....well... at least in Japan I mean [I don't know if they have plans to bring it to NA or EU].

 

[Vault101]

on one hand you don't want to be a "whiney" fan so you try and look at it from aonther perspective

on the other hand

WHO THE FUCK THOUGHT MAKING THE GREATEST 3D PLATFORMER EVER ABOUT VEHECLES WAS A GOOD IDEA??! WHO THE FUCK?

oh and you want to know the real kicker?...while Banjo Kazooie did lean on the 4th wall alot, at the start they flat out break it and literally...LITERALLY SAY...

"gamers today don;t want to collect thingd! they want to shoot things!...we'll ahve to do somthing different"

when a game flat out tells you "yeah...fuck you" you know its bad

hell they may as well have made it a first person shooter....oh wait...THEY ALREADY DID IN BANJO TOOIE...

so a first person shooter would have made more sense than fucking vehechles

you fucked up Rare....you dun' fucked up good

 

[Vault101]

a new take on a series is most likely to be accepted if the original series is technically obsolete - [...] or isometric rpgs in Fallout. People didn't resent breaking away from the old styles as much because the old styles in those cases were already effectively dead.

Freeze! Nitpick police!

Fallout 3 being 3D and first person actually pissed off quite a few people. Hell, you can still find folks moaning about it to this day.

but it wasnt in first person!...or at least it didn't have to be it was optional...the game was dull eough visually without having ot play it in first person....WHY DO PEOPLE SAY ITS IN FIRST PERSON WHEN IT ISNT AAAAGHHHHHHHHH!!!!

*ahem* sorry, carry on

 

[Fluffythepoo]

Hmmm.. id recommend reading "The Tipping Point", its about an 8 hour read for the average reader and would adequately answer this question.. plus the whole using facts and data instead of the bullshit us forums poster spew

 

[Zhukov]

a new take on a series is most likely to be accepted if the original series is technically obsolete - [...] or isometric rpgs in Fallout. People didn't resent breaking away from the old styles as much because the old styles in those cases were already effectively dead.

Freeze! Nitpick police!

Fallout 3 being 3D and first person actually pissed off quite a few people. Hell, you can still find folks moaning about it to this day.

but it wasnt in first person!...or at least it didn't have to be it was optional...the game was dull eough visually without having ot play it in first person....WHY DO PEOPLE SAY ITS IN FIRST PERSON WHEN IT ISNT AAAAGHHHHHHHHH!!!!

*ahem* sorry, carry on

What are you talking about? Fallout 3 was first person.

Well, okay, you can put it in third person mode if you really want Bethesda's terrible animation rubbed in your face.

 

[teebeeohh]

well doom really just was an updated version FPS and besides the game is just a vehicle to show off an engine anyway. and those of us who played the original were largely wowed by first person shooting aspect which in 04 was not that novel anymore

and resi 4 was actually really good and it seems that this does not happen as much with Japanese games.

 

[Vault101]

What are you talking about? Fallout 3 was first person.

Well, okay, you can put it in third person mode if you really want Bethesda's terrible animation rubbed in your face.

I'm not calling it first person unless first person is mandatory...much like calling it a shooter....its an RPG

It took the name, slapped it on a generic Men in Black style game set in the 40s and in first person. Neither of which was what Xcom was like..

huh really?.....in videogame land that isnt so generic

 

[jamesbrown]

why games, well simply because the fans are expected to invest more time into a game; therefore, if a franchise goes in a new direction; the fans wish to know if it is worth thier investment again; as opposed to the percieved game they want it to be (which is usually based off the oringal). Although if a game has a complete story arc then game fans are more likly to go into the new direction simply because no preconcieved notions developed (see: portal 1 and 2; Half-life 1 and Half-Life 2)

It also helps if the new game is really ****ing good

 

[SweetShark]

Why we don't see this kind of rage in some other Videogames that they as well changed a lot from the original games?

Why for example they didn't raged about the Doom 3? Doom 3 is a very good example of alienation of the original game. Doom 3 have a different look, the monsters doesn't exacly the same, diffeent type of action, the horror elements etc, etc...
But yet, the fan of the series [like me] didn't make it something so serious that believed it will "murder" the series.

Another example is Resident Evil 4. Seriously, the developers make the biggest alienation and stick with it in the others titles cause it had success. They made the Resident Evil series from a pure horror series, to a Fast-Third Person-Action B-movie series.
But again, never I saw a serious negative reaction for this game.

Of course there are many, MANY examples I can say [The Anime like Lost Planet, Metal Gear Solid Card game, etc...], but why we see this rage in specific games and not in some other game even they clearly changes a lot of things?

You seem to have heavily missed the point about a lot of the rage involving those things.

Syndicate at its heart was an RPG, now there are still impressive RPGs out there, from Knights of the old republic, to Dragon Age.

The rage came from the fact that EA took a decidedly un Syndicate looking game, and slap the name onto it to try to capture a nostalgic audience. I guarantee you it wouldnt have had the backlash it did if it had been a successor to the game instead of a complete bastardization.

The XCOM FPS scandal is also an interesting look. It took the name, slapped it on a generic Men in Black style game set in the 40s and in first person. Neither of which was what Xcom was like. The proper Xcom reboot though, it uses similar viewpoint, but it REFINES the game and sets itself up as different.

The reason people dont get pissed at Doom 3 is because it is still a FPS, and still about killing demons.

The reason people dont get pissed at RE is because its still the same general look, not first person and still about killing zombie like things.

But with this logic, the same goes with other games Like the FPS X-com and other games.

In the new X-com you still are able to kill aliens and use your base to do research, take more agents, built new weapons etc.

As for Doom 3, maybe it is still a FPS, but is a different kind.
Doom was well known for the open areas and for killing a huge amount of demons in the same time.
In Doom 3 litterally "kill" these characterisations of the series.
It is as you said for X-com FPS.
If they named the Doom 3 with other name, none will immediately notice that game supposed to be a game of the series.

 

[SweetShark]

why games, well simply because the fans are expected to invest more time into a game; therefore, if a franchise goes in a new direction; the fans wish to know if it is worth thier investment again; as opposed to the percieved game they want it to be (which is usually based off the oringal). Although if a game has a complete story arc then game fans are more likly to go into the new direction simply because no preconcieved notions developed (see: portal 1 and 2; Half-life 1 and Half-Life 2)

It also helps if the new game is really ****ing good

Not always....sadly...
Many times I saw some games are somehow very different than other but having good gameplay, that failed for that reason.
A good example is Final Fantasy 12.
I f*cking love FF12, but I also know the reason why many,MANY FF fans hate this game...the gameplay is like you play a classic MMO.
Personally, I loved it for that and also I was very invested to the Sub-quest it have. So mch fan.