The Most Consistant Video Game Series

[CriticalGaming]

Hey everyone, I was driving around listening to random video game reviews this weekend and a review for Call of Duty Black Ops 4 came on the playlist which got me thinking. Has Call of Duty ever been truly bad? Has it ever been broken, unplayable, or just plain shit.

It got me thinking, whether you love of hate the CoD series, I think that CoD might actually be the most consistent video game series ever made. Every game comes out and is a fairly decent twitch shooter. The campaigns are all basically similar fun little adventures. The multiplayer is also very consistent from game to game.

I tried to think of another series that is on the same level from game to game. First I thought about Final Fantasy but we all know that series has more ups and downs than something that goes up and down a lot. Mario? Maybe, but I feel like Mario has had plenty of dud games. I guess you could say Smash Brothers, but I there aren't nearly as many Smash games as some of the other franchises.

Then I came across Pokemon and I suppose that might be the perfect example of a consistent series. So much so that the games are basically the same from game to game with a different collection of monsters within.

I'm curious to hear what you guys think? What do you think is the more consistent game franchise of all time? Hell what is the most consistent good franchise and the most consistent BAD franchise?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

CoD had that one futuristic game which I think was pretty inconsistent and commonly disliked to the point where their next game's marketing pitch at some convention talked in part about how it wouldn't be like that one. As for FF, that series' main point is constantly reinventing itself while maintaining a consistent soul so that's not really that either. There's a lot of kinds of FF fans and some like some of them but dislike others (some very strongly so).


I'd go for Dragon Quest. That's a series that is still using the same approach that it used 30 years ago, refined to a razor point in all this time and the creator of the series is STILL working on it. There has never been one bad Dragon Quest either. Some people like some more than others but there's no black sheep (or I guess Slime) in that family of games.

 

[CriticalGaming]

CoD had that one futuristic game which I think was pretty inconsistent and commonly disliked to the point where their next game's marketing pitch at some convention talked in part about how it wouldn't be like that one. As for FF, that series' main point is constantly reinventing itself while maintaining a consistent soul so that's not really that either. There's a lot of kinds of FF fans and some like some of them but dislike others (some very strongly so).


I'd go for Dragon Quest. That's a series that is still using the same approach that it used 30 years ago, refined to a razor point in all this time and the creator of the series is STILL working on it. There has never been one bad Dragon Quest either. Some people like some more than others but there's no black sheep (or I guess Slime) in that family of games.

Dragon Quest is a good one yeah.

What do you think about maybe Persona or Monster Hunter games? People jizz themselves every time one of them comes out.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I honestly couldn't say. The only CoD game I've ever played was the first. Although as you say, user scores have been pretty steady with the series. I don't know if that makes them 'good' or simply popular with its own targeted demographic.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Zelda, as long as you don't count those CDI games. The only one of the official ones I can't bring myself to call good is Skyward Sword, a game where I still wonder just how the hell it turned out the way it did. But I guess you can call it the exception that proves the rule.

Otherwise every long running series is bound to hit a dark age somewhere along the line. The GTA series is probably another pretty decent example for avoiding one. GTA V wasn't as good as IV but that a pretty high bar to clear. The only other series that have kept a consistent level of quality don't have anough installments to count.

 

[Saelune]

Dynasty Warriors.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Zelda, as long as you don't count those CDI games. The only one of the official ones I can't bring myself to call good is Skyward Sword, a game where I still wonder just how the hell it turned out the way it did. But I guess you can call it the exception that proves the rule.

Otherwise every long running series is bound to hit a dark age somewhere along the line. The GTA series is probably another pretty decent example for avoiding one. GTA V wasn't as good as IV but that a pretty high bar to clear. The only other series that have kept a consistent level of quality don't have anough installments to count.

Am inclined to agree with both there, but add to that quite a few of Nintendo's IPs have an admirable consistency to their quality to them.

Also, it's not really a series (as of yet), but supergiant games have never let me down.

 

[Hawki]

I think a more interesting question is whether a series being "consistent" is a good or a bad thing - least if he take "consistent" to mean that the gameplay is relatively static.

Anyway, CoD, Zelda, Pokemon, Dynasty Warriors...yeah, they're all consistent, though of that quartet, Zelda is the only one I'm into, and the 'consistency' of Pokemon is part of what made me lose interest (gave up at Gen 3, which I didn't even own).

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Dynasty Warriors.

Maybe the Gundam ones?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

CoD had that one futuristic game which I think was pretty inconsistent and commonly disliked to the point where their next game's marketing pitch at some convention talked in part about how it wouldn't be like that one. As for FF, that series' main point is constantly reinventing itself while maintaining a consistent soul so that's not really that either. There's a lot of kinds of FF fans and some like some of them but dislike others (some very strongly so).


I'd go for Dragon Quest. That's a series that is still using the same approach that it used 30 years ago, refined to a razor point in all this time and the creator of the series is STILL working on it. There has never been one bad Dragon Quest either. Some people like some more than others but there's no black sheep (or I guess Slime) in that family of games.

Dragon Quest is a good one yeah.

What do you think about maybe Persona or Monster Hunter games? People jizz themselves every time one of them comes out.

Monster Hunter definitely fits too, Persona 1 and 2 (and 2-2) were drastically different from the other ones though, they were closer to SMT games than anything. 5 brings a few of those elements like demon negotiations back but it still is very firmly set in the mold that 3 set that takes elements from dating sims and combines them with a more character driven story.

 

[Dalisclock]

I honestly couldn't say. The only CoD game I've ever played was the first. Although as you say, user scores have been pretty steady with the series. I don't know if that makes them 'good' or simply popular with its own targeted demographic.

As far as CoD Campaigns go(No clue about the MP, never played it after COD2), they tend to do what they do well. Short, intense campaigns, high production values, tight shooting, some amazing setpieces. If you like FPS's for those reasons, it's a good thing. If that's not appealing to you, you aren't gonna get much out of the games.

Admittely, I skipped Ghosts, BLOPS3, BLOPS4 and WW2 because I heard the first 2 were shit and WW2 because I remember the original COD games and unless COD is gonna do something interesting with WW2(which it sounds like it didn't) I wasn't gonna bother. And being that BLOPS4 forgot the SP campaign, yeah I'm not gonna bother.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

COD had its share of bad games and that comes from someone who's been buying every single one on release since COD4. Ghosts was the worst one, they literally copied and pasted every animation from the ending of MW2 into the intro of the game. Not only that the game ran like absolute ASS on PC, it's my least played COD game (4 hours of MP) because it was nearly impossible to play it.

Advanced Warfare was also pretty bad, the story was mediocre at best and throwing in a big name actor in it won't fix that. The multiplayer was also not something to write home about with bad maps, the new movement and temporarily unlocked cosmetics, like what was up with that?

 

[Xprimentyl]

Zelda, as long as you don't count those CDI games. The only one of the official ones I can't bring myself to call good is Skyward Sword, a game where I still wonder just how the hell it turned out the way it did. But I guess you can call it the exception that proves the rule.

Otherwise every long running series is bound to hit a dark age somewhere along the line. The GTA series is probably another pretty decent example for avoiding one. GTA V wasn't as good as IV but that a pretty high bar to clear. The only other series that have kept a consistent level of quality don't have anough installments to count.

Agreed on GTA; ever since GTA III, each installment has been a significant gaming event and well worth the wait. Though I?d say GTA V is the best of them all (y,know, the unpopular popular opinion?) if only for the sheer variety of stuff to do, areas to explore and characters to meet.

Also, a vote for Uncharted. Granted, I only played 1-3, but having thoroughly enjoyed them all and hearing great things about 4, I?d have to say they fit the bill if only being a couple generations old.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

The Etrian Odyssey series.

You play one you have a pretty good idea how the others will play. A first person turn-based dungeon crawling RPG through a massive labyrinth filled with tough enemies, roaming minibosses that can wipe your party if not avoided, and where you need to draw your own map.

Yeah, each game is subtly different. Some have better class and ability balance than others, 3 had that sailing minigame thing, 4 had a series of smaller labyrinths on a world map that was kind of a dungeon in itself, and there WAS that Myserty Dungeon spinoff, but overall, they've been very consistent across all 5 mainline games.

 

[BrawlMan]

Dynasty Warriors.

And then Dynasty Warriors 6 & 9 happened.

Yakuza series and its various spin-offs

God of War

Serious Sam

Doom

Uncharted series

Onechanbara - They're consistent in their low-budget, but barely improved games, until Z Kagura came out and showed substantial improvement.

Devil May Cry - As long as you ignore 2 and the reboot. Though the Definitive Edition at least tries to fix its gameplay mechanics.

Ninja Gaiden - You're not going to find a lot of defenders for Vanilla!3. Maybe Razor's Edge.

Dead or Alive

Tekken - 4 is not tournament friendly, and 6 felt a bit like a step backwards.

Kiby, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and Donkey Kong Country. Almost anything put out by Nintendo.

 

[Dalisclock]

Zelda, as long as you don't count those CDI games.

What are you talking about? There's no such thing as a CDI Zelda game. You can't prove it and all "evidence" are clearly damn dirty lies.

 

[DeliveryGodNoah_v1legacy]

Fallout is always consistently broken.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Doom

Spoiler: *ahem*

Thing is, OP, most series will sooner or later attempt to change things up a bit in order to remain fresh. This throws a spanner in the idea of 'consistency', as although some of these ideas stick (COD4's decision to move to a modern theatre, loudly criticized before the game's release but applauded afterwards) and some of these ideas flop (Doom 3's 'horror' theme, GTA 4's 'gritty' theme etc), they all change the series away from what it was to something the developers want it to be, cancelling out any idea of consistency (the only exception to this rule is Nintendo - no force under the sun can force those fans to give up their endlessly churned out security blankets).

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Doom easily. debut in 1993 and still on going and all 4 main games are amazing.

even Doom 3 was excellent. and theres Doom Eternal coming which looks more badass with grappling.

 

[BrawlMan]

Doom

Spoiler: *ahem*

Thing is, OP, most series will sooner or later attempt to change things up a bit in order to remain fresh. This throws a spanner in the idea of 'consistency', as although some of these ideas stick (COD4's decision to move to a modern theatre, loudly criticized before the game's release but applauded afterwards) and some of these ideas flop (Doom 3's 'horror' theme, GTA 4's 'gritty' theme etc), they all change the series away from what it was to something the developers want it to be, cancelling out any idea of consistency (the only exception to this rule is Nintendo - no force under the sun can force those fans to give up their endlessly churned out security blankets).

At the end of the day, you're a marine killing demons just like the other Dooms. The only difference being Doom 3 takes a more System Shock/Survival Horror pacing. Resurrection of Evil paces the action a lot quicker, but the horror aspect is still there. If anything, Doom 3 took a lot of ques from Doom (PSX) and Doom 64, in terms of soundtrack and atmosphere.