The logic behind the rage for the "alienation" of Videogame series.
- Thread starter SweetShark
- Start date
Recommended Videos
my argument didn't bend, that's is what I meant all along.....rhizhim said:
I was actually going to say "are the original fallout games shooters because they have guns in them?"
anyway I've always seen Fallout 3 a "jack of all trades, master of none" type game....my point is it doesn't have to be a FPS if you choose not to play it that way...whatever works best/whatever they focused on more is somewhat beside the point
Exactly, and some people will then come back for the tofu. Restaurant income remains relatively the same, they don't change back. I think alienation is too strong a word, not everyone is going to like the changes that get made and as always its the loud minority which get remembered, not the silent majority who thought it was average-good and had no complaints.Mr.K. said:
If a game, on the other hand, doesn't work anymore, like some games when they go to 3D, then they fail, and the developer can either scrape the IP as not being worth the money anymore because it can't compete with its new 3D rivals, or it goes onto the iPad/steam for £5...so everybody wins!
It's simple really. Every game or game series has it's Thing. It's not always same Thing for each game, but it's there. Sometimes it's setting. Sometimes it's mechanics. Sometimes it's art style. Sometimes it's several Things together. When a developer changes the game's Thing, people get mad (they also get mad at other things too, but let's not complicate things).
Some games have a more flexible Thing than others. Some games are lucky enough to be able to both change the Thing and not change the Thing at the same time. For example, Super Mario RPG, Final Fantasy Tactics. No matter what though, the Thing is there and it's important.
Now let's talk FF12 for a second.
You start the game with him and he's your in-town avatar. That's pretty much the only thing that makes him a protagonist candidate. He gets swept up into something much greater than he could imagine and after that, he's just along for the ride. If anything, he's just a somewhat annoying window for us to watch the story unfold through.
Some games have a more flexible Thing than others. Some games are lucky enough to be able to both change the Thing and not change the Thing at the same time. For example, Super Mario RPG, Final Fantasy Tactics. No matter what though, the Thing is there and it's important.
Now let's talk FF12 for a second.
I never understood not liking FF12 because of Vaan. I mean, I understand not liking Vaan, he is mostly useless as a character. The thingnote: different from the Thing from above is, he's also not the main character/protagonist/whatever. And even if he technically is, he isn't as far as the story is concerned.Infernai said:
You start the game with him and he's your in-town avatar. That's pretty much the only thing that makes him a protagonist candidate. He gets swept up into something much greater than he could imagine and after that, he's just along for the ride. If anything, he's just a somewhat annoying window for us to watch the story unfold through.
Whether it was first or third person is irrelevant, the point is that it wasn't from an isometric viewpoint or turn based like it's predecessors.Vault101 said:
People rage when devs miss the point of a series completely and ruin it by changing it. But when a dev makes a change to a longstanding series and manage to improve it, people usually give them a pass.
I would have thought that the relationship between how bad the adaptation is and how people react would be quite obvious, but apparently not...
I would have thought that the relationship between how bad the adaptation is and how people react would be quite obvious, but apparently not...
depends if the fan base is a vocal one. when mass effect 3 was released people where screaming and threatening with complaints by institutes. around that time SFXTK was released where a important function was not in the xbox 360 version and would never come. even though it was advertised. this was truly perplexing for me. so yeah, fan bases are weird.
Well, I think that people who were with the series from the start, invested both money and time into the game have the right to complain about changing the very core of the game.
Look at it from this side.
If not for the fans, the game would be dead. They financed the game in hope for getting another squeal of THAT game. Not a spin-off (is that how you write it, my brain is full of fuck at this moment about this word :S). Not a different game, but that game they bought.
Of course they will feel betrayed by the developer. If not for them, the developer probably wouldn't even have a chance to developer the second game.
That being said, I don't support the rage, I just understand where it's coming from.
The developer have no obligations to do anything for the fans. They made a product, you liked it and bought it. They didn't make any promises.
Look at it from this side.
If not for the fans, the game would be dead. They financed the game in hope for getting another squeal of THAT game. Not a spin-off (is that how you write it, my brain is full of fuck at this moment about this word :S). Not a different game, but that game they bought.
Of course they will feel betrayed by the developer. If not for them, the developer probably wouldn't even have a chance to developer the second game.
That being said, I don't support the rage, I just understand where it's coming from.
The developer have no obligations to do anything for the fans. They made a product, you liked it and bought it. They didn't make any promises.
Umm, were you around when Doom 3 came out? Because I seem to remember it taking a huge amount of flak at the time for various reasons, although I still found it pretty enjoyable.
OT:Nowadays we have far more access to information than we ever did before. I remember when I had to wait to get my Nintendo Official Magazine every month to hear any new details about the Gamecube; in 2012 we know everything about the WiiU as soon as it happens which is why months in advance of it's actual release there have already been several threads insisting it's going to fail.
This is the real problem: knowing everything instantly means that the less composed among us are far quicker to dismiss new ideas as being a failure (as demonstrated by the 'Boycott Devil may Cry' thread that popped up a few months ago) before the games even have a chance to get their foot out the door.
When like-mminded people like that meet on forums such as these and spew their ill-informed bullshit together it gives the illusion that these games are hated when in actual fact most of us ar e still content to wait it out and test the finished product before we reach for the pitchforks and flaming torches.
It's the same reason that there's maybe two or three threads on the Escapist devoted to 'Games you love and why' and a deluge of threads popping up every day along the lines of 'X sucks and heres why' or 'X isn't as good as everyone says.'
OT:Nowadays we have far more access to information than we ever did before. I remember when I had to wait to get my Nintendo Official Magazine every month to hear any new details about the Gamecube; in 2012 we know everything about the WiiU as soon as it happens which is why months in advance of it's actual release there have already been several threads insisting it's going to fail.
This is the real problem: knowing everything instantly means that the less composed among us are far quicker to dismiss new ideas as being a failure (as demonstrated by the 'Boycott Devil may Cry' thread that popped up a few months ago) before the games even have a chance to get their foot out the door.
When like-mminded people like that meet on forums such as these and spew their ill-informed bullshit together it gives the illusion that these games are hated when in actual fact most of us ar e still content to wait it out and test the finished product before we reach for the pitchforks and flaming torches.
It's the same reason that there's maybe two or three threads on the Escapist devoted to 'Games you love and why' and a deluge of threads popping up every day along the lines of 'X sucks and heres why' or 'X isn't as good as everyone says.'
But what about the videogames series that was away from a long time and suddendly the a publisher decided to bring back this title again?BiH-Kira said:
Like X-com or Syndicate for example. For very long time these series was dead and only reason the publisher wanted to bring them back is either they knew the old games still have their fans [X-com series] or either though an idea they could use with the concept of a old game [Syndicate and X-com].
Its all about the fanbase, the fanbase of the Civ series won't be as upset about changes, (even though they should be) as some other fanbases would.
Some fanbases are rational and calm people willing to experience their beloved franchises through all of the changes and live and let live.
Then you have other fanbases.. and.. well..
Some fanbases are rational and calm people willing to experience their beloved franchises through all of the changes and live and let live.
Then you have other fanbases.. and.. well..
I was thinking about changes like the HUD display of the previous portal and lessoning available portal space, they are minimal but help beginning players not get stuck. There was also the addition of paints, a huge new element of gameplay, and instead of valve talking about how the gamer will love these changes they showed gameplay videos on how players interacted with the paint making everyone look forward to Portal 2.Vault101 said:
I think it's similar to what Rockstar does with GTA, if they had made a press release saying "We're shifting our focus to be much more realistic to get more fans" there would have been a shit storm, but they just showed some very realistic trailers and people were fine (at least until they played the game).
I actually never understood all the hate FF12 seems to get at all. I kind of liked it, it had an interesting world, a somewhat more grownup feel to it's characters and the story seemed interesting and political. However, I dont know if it was due to the original director getting ill and dropping off the project, but there is a notable drop in quality in the story in the last 30% of the game and that really breaks it for me. Its still a really fun game to play and I would love to get a HD-version for the PS3, but for me the story is what makes an FF-game memorable and there is simply no payoff to the promising beginning of the story in FF12. Compared to FF13 (which is the first regular FF-game since FF3 I haven't finished) FF12 still feels like a proper FF-game, although slightly lackluster. FF13 is just a mess.burningdragoon said:
Go figure, the two games that you chose to single out were two of the biggest examples of this particular topic that I did rage about back in the day.SweetShark said:
I raged about Doom III because it tried to wear far too many hats. They tried to make the game a Run-and-Gun shooter like the original games, while simultaneously trying to make it a Survival Horror FPS in the same vein as something like System Shock 2. Rather than doing one of those things REALLY well, it instead did both of them with a stunning amount of mediocrity. The end result was a Run-and-Gun FPS with too few enemies to mow down and guns only slightly more powerful than your average Airsoft rifle, and a Survival Horror game where all of the scares are completely scripted and predictable to the point of tedium. The worst part is that I really like the old Run-and-Gun Doom games, and I LOVE System Shock 2... so I should enjoy Doom III... but really, all it did was make me realize how much truly better those older games were at their respective genres, in my opinion anyway.
I raged much, much less about Resident Evil 4... but there was still a little bit of rage. I hated that they decided to change course away from the Romero "...of the Dead" style slow shambling zombies that the entire series was propped up on. I hated that they turned Leon Kennedy, a fairly normal if maybe slightly dopey police officer, into a stereotypical 1980's action movie one-liner-spewing action hero. I hated that they decided to spam the hell out of quick time events. I hated spending four hours obsessively organizing my suitcase only to die and then have to spend another four hours obsessively organizing my suitcase (I need serious psychiatric help about that, I think!). The reason why I raged about Resident Evil 4 less than I raged about Doom III is because at the end of the day, at least Resident Evil 4 ended up being a good game. It did a ton of stuff that made me angry (and even angrier now that the Resident Evil series seems to be ditching Survival/Horror entirely and veering off into the Action/Shooter direction for the foreseeable future thanks entirely to RE4), but it at least did those things really, really well. So it succeeded at being a fun game to me, but it failed miserably at being a Resident Evil game. Well... it failed at being a main-series Resident Evil game, anyway. It's still leaps and bounds better at being a Resident Evil game than, say... Gun Survivor.
Bertylicious said:
I thought MGS3 was fantastic, and really don't see how you can claim it to be 'objectively rubbish'...Bertylicious said: