This is something that's been on my mind for a while. It seems like every now and again a successful developer with a unique product COMPLETELY loses their mind and throws away what works about their game, sometimes mid-franchise. To give a few examples:
NOTICE -- PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: As I've stated in the body of this post, my intention isn't to argue about individual titles. Many of the changes below aren't that big of a deal to me, but I've noticed a general negative attitude towards them or following them, or else heard others complain in forums or in reviews about them. If you want to argue with me about these points, you're barking up the wrong tree because I have no argument to provide.
[ul]
[li]Resident Evil loses horror and adventure gaming elements in favor of increased generic action in RE5.[/li]
[li]Insomniac tries to drop the exploration and platforming elements to streamline R&C with "Ratchet: Deadlocked" to a third-person shooter with the R&C flavor. While still acknowledged as a good game with interesting features, it's generally considered to be "cut-rate" compared with the other games' content.[/li]
[li]X-COM, critically acclaimed turn-based strategy game/worldwide UFO defense grid simulator, commits suicide in the gaming marketplace by introducing X-COM: Enforcer, a shooter with none of the micromanagement/strategy elements that defined the original titles.[/li]
[li]Richard Garriott ditches the critical thinking and exploration-driven focus of Ultima VII, the most critically acclaimed game in his groundbreaking series, to create Ultima VIII and IX, a pair of derivative action-RPGs that try to be Diablo and Ultima and fail at both.[/li]
[/ul]
EDIT: REMOVED ONE BULLET from the list, realizing it was part of a more personal bias. Specifically:
There's other, more recent examples I could bring up, but there's certain specters I don't want to raise with this discussion.
While not all of these are terrible disasters and your mileage may vary on any given change noted above, it's generally accepted that these series each lacked a certain thrill afterwards. Some of these did legitimately compromise their series into oblivion, killing the entire franchise as was the case with Ultima IX.
I'm not here to debate individual games and their disappointing paradigm shifts, though--the forums are rife with that already. The main issue I want to raise is: why does this happen? Or rather, why do you think this happens? Do developers get bored with their successful IPs? Do creative differences in team members lead to changes in direction? Or is there simply that much pressure to make money that they feel the need to imitate other successful products rather than emphasizing what makes their project special?
NOTICE -- PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: As I've stated in the body of this post, my intention isn't to argue about individual titles. Many of the changes below aren't that big of a deal to me, but I've noticed a general negative attitude towards them or following them, or else heard others complain in forums or in reviews about them. If you want to argue with me about these points, you're barking up the wrong tree because I have no argument to provide.
[ul]
[li]Resident Evil loses horror and adventure gaming elements in favor of increased generic action in RE5.[/li]
[li]Insomniac tries to drop the exploration and platforming elements to streamline R&C with "Ratchet: Deadlocked" to a third-person shooter with the R&C flavor. While still acknowledged as a good game with interesting features, it's generally considered to be "cut-rate" compared with the other games' content.[/li]
[li]X-COM, critically acclaimed turn-based strategy game/worldwide UFO defense grid simulator, commits suicide in the gaming marketplace by introducing X-COM: Enforcer, a shooter with none of the micromanagement/strategy elements that defined the original titles.[/li]
[li]Richard Garriott ditches the critical thinking and exploration-driven focus of Ultima VII, the most critically acclaimed game in his groundbreaking series, to create Ultima VIII and IX, a pair of derivative action-RPGs that try to be Diablo and Ultima and fail at both.[/li]
[/ul]
EDIT: REMOVED ONE BULLET from the list, realizing it was part of a more personal bias. Specifically:
Insomniac forgets that part of the appeal of Ratchet and Clank is that the two heroes are perpetual underdogs in their universe, transforming them from a sponge of a mechanic and the runt of the robot litter into the last member of a race of legendary warriors and the Master of All Time, respectively.
There's other, more recent examples I could bring up, but there's certain specters I don't want to raise with this discussion.
While not all of these are terrible disasters and your mileage may vary on any given change noted above, it's generally accepted that these series each lacked a certain thrill afterwards. Some of these did legitimately compromise their series into oblivion, killing the entire franchise as was the case with Ultima IX.
I'm not here to debate individual games and their disappointing paradigm shifts, though--the forums are rife with that already. The main issue I want to raise is: why does this happen? Or rather, why do you think this happens? Do developers get bored with their successful IPs? Do creative differences in team members lead to changes in direction? Or is there simply that much pressure to make money that they feel the need to imitate other successful products rather than emphasizing what makes their project special?
