The Most Consistant Video Game Series

[Hawki]

So, general points:

-If Uncharted counts, then Gears of War does also (possibly to its detriment, since by Gears 4, while I enjoyed the game, the formula's starting to get stale).

-For Doom, Doom 3 and its related spinoffs are a clear break in consistency, down to tone, to gameplay, to lore. I say this as someone for whom Doom 3 is their favourite entry in the series, but I can understand why it's the black sheep in the series.

-Nintendo's IPs are relatively consistant, but of the ones CoCage listed, Donkey Kong kind of went off the rails after DK64 prior to Retro Studios. As for Metroid, I'm not sure if I'd argue it's consistent. Even leaving aside stuff like Other M and Federation Force, there's a pretty clear divide between 2D and 3D Metroid, even more so than Zelda.

 

[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).

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.

I dunno. By that logic GTA: San Andreas is the same as GTA IV because at the end of the day you're a criminal killing other criminals, Halo: Reach is the same as Halo 4 because you're a Spartan killing aliens and Fallout 1 is the just the same as Fallout 3 because of all the Supermutants running around the Wasteland. The tone, mood and setting of a storyline have just as much impact on how the story plays to an audience as the characters and plot.

 

[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.

I dunno. By that logic GTA: San Andreas is the same as GTA IV because at the end of the day you're a criminal killing other criminals, Halo: Reach is the same as Halo 4 because you're a Spartan killing aliens and Fallout 1 is the just the same as Fallout 3 because of all the Supermutants running around the Wasteland. The tone, mood and setting of a storyline have just as much impact on how the story plays to an audience as the characters and plot.

If we're talking from a gameplay perspective than yes. In this case I'm talking about GTA and Doom. I even pointed out that Doom 3 goes for a different thing but it's not that different from what Doom 64 was doing. Even the original Doom starts off with a more horror aproach and it's early levels at least. It's just that people are so used to Doom 2's level design and fast pace. Doom 3 just goes for a more system shock approach. The stories are almost the same, the only difference being that somebody intentionally open to hell in Doom 3.

A similar thing can be applied to GTA. Gameplay-wise it's always been consistent since 3, but the story and characters all have different themes. the benefit of being you had new gameplay features that go with it. Some of that work and some that didn't. In each GTA, barring 1 and 2, you are a villain protagonist that is either out for revenge, making it to the top, or both. All of these different themes in GTA V culminates this with each character being a deconstruction of sorts. This more so applies to Michael and Trevor.

If there is any sandbox games that are totally inconsistent, it's the saints row series. The series just gets wacky by the time 4 comes out no less said about agents of mayhem, the better. Going for a sincere and wacky are approaches not always a bad thing oh, but he straight too far I forgot what got you there in the first place.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Gonna throw out a vote for Mortal Kombat. God I love this series, even through the ?low? points like MK4 which was still pretty damn good, and transitioned it from live action to 3D graphics. I even didn?t mind Mythologies with Sub Zero but regrettably have never tried Special Forces even though I?ve heard it?s the worst.

 

[BrawlMan]

Gonna throw out a vote for Mortal Kombat. God I love this series, even through the ?low? points like MK4 which was still pretty damn good, and transitioned it from live action to 3D graphics. I even didn?t mind Mythologies with Sub Zero but regrettably have never tried Special Forces even though I?ve heard it?s the worst.

I never understood the hate for 4. It was better than Vanilla!MK3 and MK Trilogy. Armageddon was a fucking disaster that nearly killed the franchise. If there is any MK game people should hate, it's that one.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Weren't all MKs between 3 and 9 somewhere between mediocre to horrible though? (and even the new ones, while good games, are pretty basic from a technical competitive standpoint when contrasted to something like Guilty Gear or UNIEL)

 

[CriticalGaming]

Weren't all MKs between 3 and 9 somewhere between mediocre to horrible though? (and even the new ones, while good games, are pretty basic from a technical competitive standpoint when contrasted to something like Guilty Gear or UNIEL)

Only Sub Zero: Mythologies and Special Forces. Even the 3D ones had a similar critical reception to 3 (including Armageddon), but not quite as high as MK 2011 and MKX. The 2008 Guinness World Records Gamers Edition also listed it as the most successful fighting game series. Plus its cultural impact has spread beyond gaming.

I was thinking along those lines moreso than ?technically best? as far as fighting mechanics or best ?competitive? series.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Weren't all MKs between 3 and 9 somewhere between mediocre to horrible though? (and even the new ones, while good games, are pretty basic from a technical competitive standpoint when contrasted to something like Guilty Gear or UNIEL)

Only Sub Zero: Mythologies and Special Forces. Even the 3D ones had a similar critical reception to 3 (including Armageddon), but not quite as high as MK 2011 and MKX. The 2008 Guinness World Records Gamers Edition also listed it as the most successful fighting game series. Plus its cultural impact has spread beyond gaming.

I was thinking along those lines moreso than ?technically best? as far as fighting mechanics or best ?competitive? series.

Not really talking about critical reception and just about the actual quality of the games being at best mediocre and forgettable. Most reviewers of fighting games don't really comprehend them at a significant enough degree to opine about them intelligibly and offer advice that is surface level at best so it's a genre where reviews are gonna tell you the least about whether the game is worthwhile, has depth or if you'll like it. The universally-despised Armageddon (a game that is only ironically enjoyed in a "so bad it's good" way) being rated similarly is indication of just that point in fact. Before MK9 you would hardly ever see people mention the series as a game they are super into or that is anywhere near good.

But yeah, the last two ones do definitely fit the former criteria but not the latter and I'd say the older ones don't or not to the same degree anyhow. What the new ones did is mainly just rip off mechanics that work from other games and add them to MK. Breakers are the Burst mechanic from GG, the 3 modes each char can fight in in MKX are like the moon system from Melty Blood, stuff like that. It's all solid systems that you can't go wrong with but there's hardly anything to the game mechanically that makes it stand out.


As for the success, it's more of a mass appeal through popularity that was granted to it by the religious conservatives decrying it's content back in the 90s, causing it to obtain millions in free publicity. It's all due to an extremely strong brand name (that can survive 20 years worth of mediocrity) and not the game's quality itself. In its modern rendition I think of it as the alternative to Smash with the gimmick being gore and not Pikachu fighting Link and Mario. It's very easy at a base level and offers a lot of visual flare so it's one of those super broadly appealing games which make it sell like hotcakes with the types of people who may play a session or two a month or so with their buddies.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Weren't all MKs between 3 and 9 somewhere between mediocre to horrible though? (and even the new ones, while good games, are pretty basic from a technical competitive standpoint when contrasted to something like Guilty Gear or UNIEL)

Only Sub Zero: Mythologies and Special Forces. Even the 3D ones had a similar critical reception to 3 (including Armageddon), but not quite as high as MK 2011 and MKX. The 2008 Guinness World Records Gamers Edition also listed it as the most successful fighting game series. Plus its cultural impact has spread beyond gaming.

I was thinking along those lines moreso than ?technically best? as far as fighting mechanics or best ?competitive? series.

Not really talking about critical reception and just about the actual quality of the games being at best mediocre and forgettable. Most reviewers of fighting games don't really comprehend them at a significant enough degree to opine about them intelligibly and offer advice that is surface level at best so it's a genre where reviews are gonna tell you the least about whether the game is worthwhile, has depth or if you'll like it. The universally-despised Armageddon (a game that is only ironically enjoyed in a "so bad it's good" way) being rated similarly is indication of just that point in fact. Before MK9 you would hardly ever see people mention the series as a game they are super into or that is anywhere near good.

But yeah, the last two ones do definitely fit the former criteria but not the latter and I'd say the older ones don't or not to the same degree anyhow. What the new ones did is mainly just rip off mechanics that work from other games and add them to MK. Breakers are the Burst mechanic from GG, the 3 modes each char can fight in in MKX are like the moon system from Melty Blood, stuff like that. It's all solid systems that you can't go wrong with but there's hardly anything to the game mechanically that makes it stand out.


As for the success, it's more of a mass appeal through popularity that was granted to it by the religious conservatives decrying it's content back in the 90s, causing it to obtain millions in free publicity. It's all due to an extremely strong brand name (that can survive 20 years worth of mediocrity) and not the game's quality itself. In its modern rendition I think of it as the alternative to Smash with the gimmick being gore and not Pikachu fighting Link and Mario. It's very easy at a base level and offers a lot of visual flare so it's one of those super broadly appealing games which make it sell like hotcakes with the types of people who may play a session or two a month or so with their buddies.

You?re obviously a fighting game aficionado, but the title of the thread is ?Most Consistent Video Game Series?, not ?Most Technically Competent Video Game Series?. I?m well aware it?s everything you say, but that works both ways in the vein of this thread. Also, there have been plenty of highly competitive MK matches since the reboot, so it?s certainly not completely reserved to weekend warrior types of fighting game fans either.

Having said that, I do wish it?d go back more to its roots and really explore a grittier, more deliberate fighting system, where highly damaging moves are tougher to pull off, but could permanently alter the course of a match at any time through a more dynamic physical damage model.

 

[CaitSeith]

The Ace Attorney series. They always throw a new gimmick in each iteration, but the basic gameplay has always been recollecting evidence outside court, pressing the witness in court, and presenting evidence both in court and outside (the biggest change is that the newer games are much less punishing). It's pretty consistent in artstyle, visual novel-like look, and over-the-top characters (with the only major change that they went from 2D sprites to 3D cel-shaded models).

 

[Abomination]

I have fond memories of the Mechwarrior games. A shame they stopped using the same formula and they just dried up. Always enjoyed those releases.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Up until the last one, God of War.

 

[cathou]

Civilization is pretty much alway critically acclaim each time, and keep improving. even when they do bold choices, like for civ V, they always end up in a succes.

 

[kilenem]

Ignoring Brawl, the Smash brothers series has been pretty constant. Brawl was the only game where it felt like a step in the wrong direction. Melee is better then the first one, Smash 4 is better then Brawl and Ultimate seems like a better version of Smash 4.

Also the Burnout Series, Burn Out 3 is still the GOAT but Revenge and Paradise are great games.

 

[Dalisclock]

Playing Uncharted 4 and doing some refresher videos reminded me that all 4 of the mainline games feel very similar to each other. The plot, in broad strokes, is practically the same every time and a lot of the setpieces have been used and reused. Notably the sequence when you get in some kind of vehicle crash and spend the next 10 or so minutes wandering around in some extreme environment for a bit, or the truck chase where you have to jump from vehicle to vehicle. It's fun but it's notable that naughty dog doesn't really find new ideas, they just keep reusing the ones that work.