surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I dunno about you, but if I paid money for an Batman movie and got a movie about a couple of Gotham beat cops I'd be pretty upset.
Speaking of misguided, I think Jim pissed the point on why alot of (sane) people are upset with the DMC reboot
Speaking of misguided, I think Jim pissed the point on why alot of (sane) people are upset with the DMC reboot
Goddamnit, Jim, I love you for this. I've been telling people this for years, and this brilliant video/rant summed up all of my points in a few minutes. Thank God for Jim Sterling.
In that video there's footage of fucking Pyramid Head appearing as a Diablo-style boss. That's like Laura Palmer from Twin Peaks appearing in Mortal Kombat as a playable character. Now, the reason that shitty little Vita game, and that shitty little cover-based third person shooter, and that shitty little FPS with "breaching" and "4 player coop" are named after venerable franchises is because of MONEY and CORPORATE INTERESTS. brb I'm off to bomb a school
apparently companies shouldnt be lambasted for saying the next sequel in a trilogy and then going on to retcon and ruin the previous story but we should be for calling their shit out
What i wonder is why they use the games like x-com when its such a far far departure what what it originaly was. It tends to smell like "we need to cash in on a name" syndrome.
If there is a spin off that doesn't affect the main story or the original series why does it matter? Just don't play it if you don't want to play it. It won't be a part of the original series so you wont miss anything. I agree with you Jim. Just because some people don't wanna play something, doesn't mean it can't exist for the people that do. I don't get the arrogance of it...
This is a pretty backwards way of thinking. The question here is why make a game a part of a certain series if it's nothing like it. There can be a lots of reasonable answers to this, especially if it's a spin-off, but they rarely happen in reality. Most of the time, it's either about trying to make a series for a "wider audience", or to cash in on a known name. Neither lead to good things most of the time.
From now own all video games will be called, "Video Game: The Game." There, that will solve this issue and people can play what they enjoy and everyone else won't know what to complain about.
@flaszlo
It really is just about brand recognition. If konami made book of memories and just made it a brand new IP, it probably would do much worse off. At least silent hill fans would give it a chance. In the case of Dead Space 3 however, I really wish EA would make it a new IP, or at least a spin off, because I no longer am going to get a survival horror game, I'm going to get some generic shooter where I can't get all of the content unless I pretty much pay someone to play coop with me.
It really is just about brand recognition. If konami made book of memories and just made it a brand new IP, it probably would do much worse off. At least silent hill fans would give it a chance. In the case of Dead Space 3 however, I really wish EA would make it a new IP, or at least a spin off, because I no longer am going to get a survival horror game, I'm going to get some generic shooter where I can't get all of the content unless I pretty much pay someone to play coop with me.
@Uncle Reg
That's a great idea. Laura Palmer needs to be playable in Mortal Kombat. They could have appear as a corpse wrapped in plastic and her special attack could be unleashing the power of Bob.
That's a great idea. Laura Palmer needs to be playable in Mortal Kombat. They could have appear as a corpse wrapped in plastic and her special attack could be unleashing the power of Bob.
I'm all for changes in a game. I've been playing the Kingdom Under Fire Series for years, and Almost every single game has been a turn in a different direction, but the fact is that they always, ALWAYS stuck to the same lore and setup that made the games good to me. Yes, Circle of Doom was really bland and repetitive half the time, but it made up for it in the manner of story that connected a huge amount of information from the very first game in the series to the next one coming out.
I'm ok with a game that likes to change here and there, and I'm ok with even the bad ones if they have relevancy to the series, but for fucks sake fuck DmC. Dante was a demon hunter with a badass attitude. He was over the top in a japanese way that made fans happy, even if 2 was slow as fuck and 4 was very clunky at times. THe game always stuck to the story, it always followed the path of this demon hunter and kept his aspect the same.
Now, the new dante has all that attitude, over-the-topness, ridiculous attacks, and combos out the ass just like the old one. This is not why I hate what Ninja-theory is doing to DmC, what I hate is that they go as far out of their way as possible to deny the existance of the rest of the series. When I heard that Dante was part angel, I thought "ok, maybe this is Dante Jr and Dante Sr got it on with an angel and boom, this guy". Then they said its a prequel, throwing everything out the window there. Then they start talking about this new dante like his the hottest fucking thing around. He sounds like a teenage drop-out who lives on the outskirts of town with an alcohol problem and a poor outlook on life because boohoo he sees demons while no-one else can and this makes him different. I bet he fucking sparkles in the daylight too.
While the last Dante was over-the-top and ridiculous, he was still clean. He didn't smoke, as Shinji Mikami made sure of. He didn't drink, not even in the Anime, and he was an all around good standing guy, besides the fact that he killed demons for a living. Tameem, however, had not a single fuck to give about all that. He wanted "cool". There is a picture floating around explaining what Tameem thinks is "cool", and it sounds like a retard who's lived a shitty life and does nothing but focus on it to make himself seem better than others in some way. My best friend had an ex-girlfriend who did that, and everyone hated her cause she was a manipulative bitch.
This new DMC doesn't follow the series, takes no consideration in someone elses work, and only focuses on being "cool". I thought Bayonetta was a pretty cool game, no matter how over-sexualized it got, but apparently, even though the game was fun to Tameem, he would never play it again, cause it wasn't "cool".
Fuck Tameem, fuck Ninja Theory, fuck Donte, and Fuck the new DMC
I'm ok with a game that likes to change here and there, and I'm ok with even the bad ones if they have relevancy to the series, but for fucks sake fuck DmC. Dante was a demon hunter with a badass attitude. He was over the top in a japanese way that made fans happy, even if 2 was slow as fuck and 4 was very clunky at times. THe game always stuck to the story, it always followed the path of this demon hunter and kept his aspect the same.
Now, the new dante has all that attitude, over-the-topness, ridiculous attacks, and combos out the ass just like the old one. This is not why I hate what Ninja-theory is doing to DmC, what I hate is that they go as far out of their way as possible to deny the existance of the rest of the series. When I heard that Dante was part angel, I thought "ok, maybe this is Dante Jr and Dante Sr got it on with an angel and boom, this guy". Then they said its a prequel, throwing everything out the window there. Then they start talking about this new dante like his the hottest fucking thing around. He sounds like a teenage drop-out who lives on the outskirts of town with an alcohol problem and a poor outlook on life because boohoo he sees demons while no-one else can and this makes him different. I bet he fucking sparkles in the daylight too.
While the last Dante was over-the-top and ridiculous, he was still clean. He didn't smoke, as Shinji Mikami made sure of. He didn't drink, not even in the Anime, and he was an all around good standing guy, besides the fact that he killed demons for a living. Tameem, however, had not a single fuck to give about all that. He wanted "cool". There is a picture floating around explaining what Tameem thinks is "cool", and it sounds like a retard who's lived a shitty life and does nothing but focus on it to make himself seem better than others in some way. My best friend had an ex-girlfriend who did that, and everyone hated her cause she was a manipulative bitch.
This new DMC doesn't follow the series, takes no consideration in someone elses work, and only focuses on being "cool". I thought Bayonetta was a pretty cool game, no matter how over-sexualized it got, but apparently, even though the game was fun to Tameem, he would never play it again, cause it wasn't "cool".
Fuck Tameem, fuck Ninja Theory, fuck Donte, and Fuck the new DMC
Who remembers Pac-Land?
Anyway, I liked what you had to say, Jim. I just want to have fun with my games. Mind you, if it's a series I held as precious, it would be hard to accept anything different. But I'm happy you said all this.
Anyway, I liked what you had to say, Jim. I just want to have fun with my games. Mind you, if it's a series I held as precious, it would be hard to accept anything different. But I'm happy you said all this.
Certain names have certain expectations, so a name can make a game. When a game as "The Legend of Zelda" in it's name, you know how it's going to play, what the story will be, the characters, etc. The name makes the game, and the games have been masterpieces, so the name means the game will be good.
With the exception of The Adventure of Link (Which was before the name and the game was truly "linked" to each other), and those non-Nintendo published games (You know the ones), this rule contradicts your idea that a name does not effect the game.
Consider the Silent Hill game you were covering, I may not know a whole lot about the Silent Hill series, so I can't really pick it apart, I can tell you this. Silent Hill to gamers means survival horror. When the game is not survival horror, it's not Silent Hill. Good game or bad, doesn't matter, it's already below expectations by not being true to it's name. This is a bad thing because the reason people like Silent Hill is it's survival horror gameplay, if they didn't like that, they wouldn't be fans of the series, and they wouldn't give a shit about a spin-off of a series they don't like.
So to sum that point up, that Silent Hill spinoff is trying to appeal to the hardcore gamer that enjoys survival horror, by making a dungeon crawler and being nothing like the earlier games that turned the gamers into fans?
That'll do well, don't you think?
With the exception of The Adventure of Link (Which was before the name and the game was truly "linked" to each other), and those non-Nintendo published games (You know the ones), this rule contradicts your idea that a name does not effect the game.
Consider the Silent Hill game you were covering, I may not know a whole lot about the Silent Hill series, so I can't really pick it apart, I can tell you this. Silent Hill to gamers means survival horror. When the game is not survival horror, it's not Silent Hill. Good game or bad, doesn't matter, it's already below expectations by not being true to it's name. This is a bad thing because the reason people like Silent Hill is it's survival horror gameplay, if they didn't like that, they wouldn't be fans of the series, and they wouldn't give a shit about a spin-off of a series they don't like.
So to sum that point up, that Silent Hill spinoff is trying to appeal to the hardcore gamer that enjoys survival horror, by making a dungeon crawler and being nothing like the earlier games that turned the gamers into fans?
That'll do well, don't you think?
I've noticed a formula in the game industry that troubles me.
Step 1: Take a game idea that may already be conceptualized or even in development, and slap a known franchise name on it.
Step 2: Now that it has that name, we have to inject callbacks and game elements from previous games in the franchise, pretty much ruining the original vision.
Step 3: Profit!
That's not to say every sequel or spin-off is like that. Just that I hate it when it happens.
Also this has happened to me: A sequel is announced to a game, and I naturally assume that it's going to be a familiar experience. It quickly becomes clear that it's not, so I become very disappointed :( Posting on Destructoid about how the game is going to suck is not the right answer to this disappointment, but the disappointment is real and justified.
Also, if the game turns out to be great, you play it and love it, it still doesn't invalidate or dispel that disappointment. Fallout 3 is one of my favorite games of all time but I still lament that there aren't any spiritual sequels to Fallout 2. Fingers crossed for Wasteland 2!!
Step 1: Take a game idea that may already be conceptualized or even in development, and slap a known franchise name on it.
Step 2: Now that it has that name, we have to inject callbacks and game elements from previous games in the franchise, pretty much ruining the original vision.
Step 3: Profit!
That's not to say every sequel or spin-off is like that. Just that I hate it when it happens.
Also this has happened to me: A sequel is announced to a game, and I naturally assume that it's going to be a familiar experience. It quickly becomes clear that it's not, so I become very disappointed :( Posting on Destructoid about how the game is going to suck is not the right answer to this disappointment, but the disappointment is real and justified.
Also, if the game turns out to be great, you play it and love it, it still doesn't invalidate or dispel that disappointment. Fallout 3 is one of my favorite games of all time but I still lament that there aren't any spiritual sequels to Fallout 2. Fingers crossed for Wasteland 2!!
Well, I'm all for a good game but most games which are a problem just take a name from a franchise because otherwise no one would even care. The new Silent Hill looks like Renegade Ops. It probably is a fun game but it wouldn't interest a lot when it wouldn't be called Silent Hill.
Now DMC on the other hand. From what I've seen it could be a fun title that wouldn't even need the DMC tag. So, why did they do it? Scared to make a new IP in a world were new IPs are so hard to establish?
If the game is good people will appreciate it. When the game is bad or mediocre people go rampant when an otherwise well known franchise name is ruined for it. Makes sense? Makes fucking sense to me.
Banjo Kazooie was a fucking milking product. Same as Syndicate and probably X-COM.
Now DMC on the other hand. From what I've seen it could be a fun title that wouldn't even need the DMC tag. So, why did they do it? Scared to make a new IP in a world were new IPs are so hard to establish?
If the game is good people will appreciate it. When the game is bad or mediocre people go rampant when an otherwise well known franchise name is ruined for it. Makes sense? Makes fucking sense to me.
Banjo Kazooie was a fucking milking product. Same as Syndicate and probably X-COM.
Although I don't think one should deny that name and brand recognition are very real factors when forming an opinion about a game, I think Jim has some good points. What it really comes down to for me is this: is the different direction taken with the game interesting and well made? I can't imagine a good Metroid dating simulator, but going fps with it made perfect sense and was in my opinion the right thing to do, I could even see it go rts, rpg, and many other things.
In other words, I kinda agree with Jim but I add a small "but" to his opinion in order to make it my own.
Great episode as always, Jimmy-boy! <3
In other words, I kinda agree with Jim but I add a small "but" to his opinion in order to make it my own.
Great episode as always, Jimmy-boy! <3
It was fairly okay when Fallout and Baldurs Gate were turned into Diablo clones for consoles (former was bad, latter was good) - RPGs and Diablo-like hacko slasho are sibling genres after all. But Silent Hill is a horror game franchise with the setting deeply binded with psychological horror and atmospheric gameplay and so, wasting resources on a hack-n-slash with killer nurses and pyramid heads feels just wrong. Why not make a Silent Hill pinball or Silent Hill tacticool FPS or Silent Hill fighting game by Arc System? Book of Memories is another appearance of a trend of turning everything into a an action-action game: mostly in a third-person shooter or FPS - who needs originality and niche genres, lets reskin the generic shooter with an existing brand name.
And the part about Dmc and Dante is just a strawman, a wrong strawman even - people are complaining that the new Dante is NOT silly and just plainly an uninteresting character. Nevermind that the combat system and difficulty are going to get watered down in a series that is famous for its cool combat system and high (variable) difficulty. Praise the experimentation! Art!
The better target of this JQ would have been people who are complaining about Metal Gear Rising and throwing shit at a reliable developer that has made Bayonetta, the best hack-n-slash of this gen.
And the part about Dmc and Dante is just a strawman, a wrong strawman even - people are complaining that the new Dante is NOT silly and just plainly an uninteresting character. Nevermind that the combat system and difficulty are going to get watered down in a series that is famous for its cool combat system and high (variable) difficulty. Praise the experimentation! Art!
The better target of this JQ would have been people who are complaining about Metal Gear Rising and throwing shit at a reliable developer that has made Bayonetta, the best hack-n-slash of this gen.
I don't really attach myself to any specific franchises, but I can see for those that do, that the plethora of these side games that are not really direct sequels can detract from the overall franchise. People that are eagerly awaiting the next actual game are bound to be disappointed when some totally different game comes along with the name of their franchise.
A lot of people like comfortable. They have expectations from their franchise. Many have a legitimate point that if a game comes along that is entirely different from the franchise, maybe it should just be it's own franchise. Instead it's simply making money off of the older name (that is revered by it's fanbase), and essentially it may be viewed as a "selling out" of the game. That maybe the intent isn't to produce an actual next game in the franchise at all, but instead devs will just attach the name to any old game in the hopes that fans will buy it.
They're saying that they expect more. Nothing wrong with that.
A lot of people like comfortable. They have expectations from their franchise. Many have a legitimate point that if a game comes along that is entirely different from the franchise, maybe it should just be it's own franchise. Instead it's simply making money off of the older name (that is revered by it's fanbase), and essentially it may be viewed as a "selling out" of the game. That maybe the intent isn't to produce an actual next game in the franchise at all, but instead devs will just attach the name to any old game in the hopes that fans will buy it.
They're saying that they expect more. Nothing wrong with that.
"with recent Silent Hill and Devil May Cry entries providing a fertile bed of misguided anger."
Even though the games could be renamed, at least the Silent Hill games (even the Vita one, soon) have remained in the Silent Hill world.. Actually, Silent Hill: The Room was a case of the opposite -an originally non-series game, made to be one to get the name recognition; but a game that also ended up fitting fine in that world, as well as a fan favorite (even to the point where Konami has retconned the story to say it was always intended to be a Silent Hill game, leaving little to no evidence of what was said back around the time of its release).
DmC is another story, but mostly because I'm not sure where it fits into that universe (I'm not against the game though, either. I think theres more then enough room for re-imaginings in this world). If the game doesn't fit the world/universe then, yeah, it shouldn't be called a Devil May Cry game, just for the sake of name recognition.
@UncleReg
"That's like Laura Palmer from Twin Peaks appearing in Mortal Kombat as a playable character."
ROFL
Even though the games could be renamed, at least the Silent Hill games (even the Vita one, soon) have remained in the Silent Hill world.. Actually, Silent Hill: The Room was a case of the opposite -an originally non-series game, made to be one to get the name recognition; but a game that also ended up fitting fine in that world, as well as a fan favorite (even to the point where Konami has retconned the story to say it was always intended to be a Silent Hill game, leaving little to no evidence of what was said back around the time of its release).
DmC is another story, but mostly because I'm not sure where it fits into that universe (I'm not against the game though, either. I think theres more then enough room for re-imaginings in this world). If the game doesn't fit the world/universe then, yeah, it shouldn't be called a Devil May Cry game, just for the sake of name recognition.
@UncleReg
"That's like Laura Palmer from Twin Peaks appearing in Mortal Kombat as a playable character."
ROFL
yeah I agree Jim.
I think some people are pissed about DmC because it's been made by some other developer, but they should be happy, had it been Capcom it would be more of what they think fans want (dmc 4 kind of crap) and it would be rigged with dlc shit anyway.
I think some people are pissed about DmC because it's been made by some other developer, but they should be happy, had it been Capcom it would be more of what they think fans want (dmc 4 kind of crap) and it would be rigged with dlc shit anyway.
But the new Xcom FPS literally has nothing to do with Xcom or it's existing story. It literally does not. I know for people who haven't played the originals, they're probably like "boo hoo it's aliens and shit get over it", or "It can still be a good shooter", but I've seen the game. It's not very impressive looking as a shooter and does not have nearly half the depth of the original games, AND it retcons everything about Xcom. Before it was a futuristic global organization trying to stop alien attacks and eventually take the fight back to the aliens on mars, or at least the first game was. Now it's a 1950's AMERICAN organization trying to fight the aliens, and the aliens don't even RESEMBLE the ones in the other Xcom games. Also instead of having the map of earth where you hunt down aliens in an open world manner, you have premade missions to go on as you go across america.
A change in genre? I can handle that. A retcon here or there? That's expected when you have an old franchise revival. But you can't literally change 95% of what made the previous game what it fucking was and expect anyone who is a fan of the old game to recognize it.
A change in genre? I can handle that. A retcon here or there? That's expected when you have an old franchise revival. But you can't literally change 95% of what made the previous game what it fucking was and expect anyone who is a fan of the old game to recognize it.
When you become attached to a franchise you expect a certain level of uniformity. That said different isn't necessarily bad. Changing things up here or there can be a breath of fresh air.
The problem really arises when it becomes blatantly obvious they are releasing shit games and appending a known franchise to them so they will sell.
When you boil it all down your franchise is like your street cred. Keep churning out quality and it will continue to be worth something. Abuse your franchise and people will stop viewing it as a thing to buy and start seeing it as a thing to avoid.
The problem really arises when it becomes blatantly obvious they are releasing shit games and appending a known franchise to them so they will sell.
When you boil it all down your franchise is like your street cred. Keep churning out quality and it will continue to be worth something. Abuse your franchise and people will stop viewing it as a thing to buy and start seeing it as a thing to avoid.
I don't think people like seeing characters they respect (like Pyramid Head) being overused and whored out. It harms the quality of that character and the quality of the series. When I go back and play SH2 now I see Pyramid Head as this pop culture icon instead of what he is supposed to be- a terrifying creature with a deeper meaning. The whole dark Silent Hill concept has been turned into a gimmick.
I don't think the fans help this either to be honest- every time I see someone cosplaying as a SH nurse (or Pyramid Head) it reduces the scary effect those monsters once had on me. To me this game just represents the end of Silent Hill to me. I don't think it's possible for me to be scared by a SH game anymore so they might as well do whatever with the franchise at this point- I just won't have a part in it.
I don't think the fans help this either to be honest- every time I see someone cosplaying as a SH nurse (or Pyramid Head) it reduces the scary effect those monsters once had on me. To me this game just represents the end of Silent Hill to me. I don't think it's possible for me to be scared by a SH game anymore so they might as well do whatever with the franchise at this point- I just won't have a part in it.
I've been defending Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts for awhile now, for this very reason. Yeah, it's a different type of game than Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie, but it's still really fun to play.
A name is more than a name. We're talking about entertainment, not toasters, the names mean something. The names are the context by which we associate the content with.
Reboots are universal, we've had Batman movies with several different themes and all that shit. However, the Batman movies were always action movies, they always had that same basic context.
I don't understand the DMC rage, it is exactly the kind of reboot that fits. But something like Fallout? Silent Hill? Series that have had their context upended because that context is too niche? There's something to be said there.
Saying the names mean nothing is very close to saying their contexts mean nothing. You could reasonably give any possible game a name from a series regardless if it at all fits.
"Would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?" was a line uttered by an irrational child in a story about irrational children. The rose would smell equally as sweet by the name "stinktrash assblossom", but would the rose carry the same metaphorical and cultural weight if this were the case? No, it wouldn't. If the name of a rose were changed to "stinktrash assblossom", the rose would likely fall out of favor, and this is the point.
Reboots are universal, we've had Batman movies with several different themes and all that shit. However, the Batman movies were always action movies, they always had that same basic context.
I don't understand the DMC rage, it is exactly the kind of reboot that fits. But something like Fallout? Silent Hill? Series that have had their context upended because that context is too niche? There's something to be said there.
Saying the names mean nothing is very close to saying their contexts mean nothing. You could reasonably give any possible game a name from a series regardless if it at all fits.
"Would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?" was a line uttered by an irrational child in a story about irrational children. The rose would smell equally as sweet by the name "stinktrash assblossom", but would the rose carry the same metaphorical and cultural weight if this were the case? No, it wouldn't. If the name of a rose were changed to "stinktrash assblossom", the rose would likely fall out of favor, and this is the point.
If I recall correctly, there was a certain Resident Evil spin-off, and one 'major' gaming site kept criticizing it because it had the RE name.
Reviews like that really piss me off. Sure, they did have some actual reasons too, but the fact that they kept criticizing the game for not being exactly like the other RE games really pissed me off.
Reviews like that really piss me off. Sure, they did have some actual reasons too, but the fact that they kept criticizing the game for not being exactly like the other RE games really pissed me off.
One thing that bugged me about this JQ is the lack of scope when considering spinoffs. Say for example Splinter Cell, a grand game about stealth and being a special operations ninja that has limitations but is still a badass. Post Chaos Theory it seems that everyone likes to make their own spin off but not keep with the original premise of the character. To the point that we have the newest version that might as well been called Splinter Cell: Manshoots vs Duty On Call. The point I'm trying to make is that while some spin offs are good and add to a wealth of great game-play (Silent Hill The Escape, Hot Shots Golf Portable, & Puzzle Fighter). Other are slipshod poor excuses of the series and tend to be more in line with the Imagine Series than the series they try to represent.
Hey Jim, how about this for the setup to a Cel Shaded Killzone game - follow the war from the side of one of the Helghan soldiers, who see everything in the same way as the Pyro from TF2.
I've been saying this for years and years. Gamers get far too hung up on naming. All that attaching a series name allows something to do is attract more sales - it ends at the name, and it lets developers take more risks with less chance of failure. Look at the Final Fantasy series - there are very few direct sequels in that series and generally every game with the Final Fantasy brand attached is unique. Would games like Final Fantasy: The Four Heroes of Light and Final Fantasy Tactics have ever stood any kind of chance without the FF brand? Instead, people say 'Der, Square Enix are milking it der'. If those games came out today, they'd be shat on because they use the name.
Is that still happening with DMC? I thought there was a shit-storm just at the beginning of the awful unveiling of a poster boy for Team Edward starring in the new game, but since he's been redesigned and the game looks to be shaping up to be really cool, i didn't realize little boytwats were still bitching.
On the other side of this argument. i don't agree that there is nothing in a name. Names have value, and when that value is perceived to be lowered due to a crappy product attached to it, then it DOES have an affect. I think you're argument is less about names of games, and the relatively shitty nature of gamers this days and their inability to give things a chance before they try them, like all the hoopla over the New Super Mario Bros. games that everyone has decided are horrible because they are "DER SAIME!"
On the other side of this argument. i don't agree that there is nothing in a name. Names have value, and when that value is perceived to be lowered due to a crappy product attached to it, then it DOES have an affect. I think you're argument is less about names of games, and the relatively shitty nature of gamers this days and their inability to give things a chance before they try them, like all the hoopla over the New Super Mario Bros. games that everyone has decided are horrible because they are "DER SAIME!"
I think it's not the love of a name so much as the expectations it carries. If series X is usually a good FPS and it's dumbed down into a blatant cash in kinect title I can see the point for protest. As we haven't played the games discussed for all we know Bioshock Infinite will be garbage and MW4 will have a next gen physics engine better than Frostbite with 300 players.
We can only speculate. On DMC, I don't like the overall direction much but will wait to see if the game is good. Maybe it'll mean Capcom will support the franchise more. They certainly didn't handle it well in the first place.
We can only speculate. On DMC, I don't like the overall direction much but will wait to see if the game is good. Maybe it'll mean Capcom will support the franchise more. They certainly didn't handle it well in the first place.
I've never been troubled by spin-offs that go with a new style, but I'll admit to being bothered when a great game from an underserved genre receives a new (numbered, main series) entry or reboot that largely abandons said genre in favor of "what's popular now".
Traditional stealth and survival horror games getting the "me too" action treatment just depresses me. And if Elder Scrolls VI was an MMO, I'd probably be pissed no matter how good of an MMO it was.
I'm usually happy to see studios get creative, but there can be conflicting interests when you have an established IP. The publisher wants long-time fans to buy their game. The fans in turn want a game that delivers more of what they loved about said IP. If you want the MONEY from those fans, it follows that you should give them some of what they want in return.
The conflict arises when a publisher wants the money that series diehards bring in, but doesn't want to cater to them. As such, there are times when not creating a new IP can come off as cowardly and just plain deceptive.
Traditional stealth and survival horror games getting the "me too" action treatment just depresses me. And if Elder Scrolls VI was an MMO, I'd probably be pissed no matter how good of an MMO it was.
I'm usually happy to see studios get creative, but there can be conflicting interests when you have an established IP. The publisher wants long-time fans to buy their game. The fans in turn want a game that delivers more of what they loved about said IP. If you want the MONEY from those fans, it follows that you should give them some of what they want in return.
The conflict arises when a publisher wants the money that series diehards bring in, but doesn't want to cater to them. As such, there are times when not creating a new IP can come off as cowardly and just plain deceptive.
I think that because games are interactive entertainment, the fans seem to take more ownership of the narrative and over-arching stories of the games than we see in other media. That's probably why there is usually such an uproar when someone (and your examples were good), tries to attribute a known name to an original idea.
If I ordered pasta and the waiter brings me a hamburger claiming "but it's good!", I won't be very happy about it.
I'm all for new experience, but if it's nothing like you've already made in the past, just make it a new IP. Don't put the name of an existing franchise on it hoping that would make it sell better. That's just lame. I loved Dragon's Dogma, and I love Resident Evil. But if Capcom named Dragon's Dogma "Resident Evil Fantasy Edition", I'll be pissed off.
I'm all for new experience, but if it's nothing like you've already made in the past, just make it a new IP. Don't put the name of an existing franchise on it hoping that would make it sell better. That's just lame. I loved Dragon's Dogma, and I love Resident Evil. But if Capcom named Dragon's Dogma "Resident Evil Fantasy Edition", I'll be pissed off.
Another week, another Jimquisition where Sterling completely misses the point.
People are upset with DMC because it's a different direction for the franchise. A direction that the established fanbase, a group of millions of people who purchased the first four games and enjoyed them, largely isn't fond of. It's not that DMC is a spinoff, it's a proper sequel. There is no classic Devil May Cry. It's gone. This is the new product you're getting, and if you don't like it, tough shit. We wanted to make him emo, so he's going to be emo.
And I think that's kind of shitty. The Silent Hill Vita game is different. It's a spinoff. At the same time, Origins and Shattered Memories on the PSP were pretty good games and stayed true to the original formula for the most part. So again, when you have a large fan base that wants more of that for their portable Sony platform, getting a title that ignores almost everything that was good about the original franchise is pretty disappointing.
You can go ahead and list as many Youtube comments from people irrationally raging about this all you want, but it only work to counter your point. Irrational people are irrational. It has nothing to do with the actual problem which you completely failed to address.
And yea, when I wait 6+ god damn years for a new Prey game and they give me something that is absolutely nothing like Prey in any way, shape, or form, I find it incredibly fucking misleading to call the game Prey 2, as if its an actual sequel to the 2006 game. It's not, even if Prey 2 looks awesome on its own. I just take issue with deceptive marketing, and I think you of all people would understand that.
People are upset with DMC because it's a different direction for the franchise. A direction that the established fanbase, a group of millions of people who purchased the first four games and enjoyed them, largely isn't fond of. It's not that DMC is a spinoff, it's a proper sequel. There is no classic Devil May Cry. It's gone. This is the new product you're getting, and if you don't like it, tough shit. We wanted to make him emo, so he's going to be emo.
And I think that's kind of shitty. The Silent Hill Vita game is different. It's a spinoff. At the same time, Origins and Shattered Memories on the PSP were pretty good games and stayed true to the original formula for the most part. So again, when you have a large fan base that wants more of that for their portable Sony platform, getting a title that ignores almost everything that was good about the original franchise is pretty disappointing.
You can go ahead and list as many Youtube comments from people irrationally raging about this all you want, but it only work to counter your point. Irrational people are irrational. It has nothing to do with the actual problem which you completely failed to address.
And yea, when I wait 6+ god damn years for a new Prey game and they give me something that is absolutely nothing like Prey in any way, shape, or form, I find it incredibly fucking misleading to call the game Prey 2, as if its an actual sequel to the 2006 game. It's not, even if Prey 2 looks awesome on its own. I just take issue with deceptive marketing, and I think you of all people would understand that.
I understand your point that a name is just a name, however, if a game like Silent Hill: Book of Memories was it's own game and not just a spin-off, it could become an entire new franchise with new and interesting characters and gameplay. If Kirby's Epic Yarn wasn't a Kirby game, it would probably have a sequel in the works by now.
Final Fantasy series > this whole discussion.
In other words, its a series which tries something new whilst keeping to a RPG vein which fans know to expect and has a divided fan base therefore on which titles they prefer.
So if they make a shit game, Its a shit game and vice versa.
I think its really awesome people get very impassioned about their favourite series. Its like fans who love a band's music for years and then the band changes their musical direction. I still think Jim is right in saying you should just reserve judgement to if it "works". If it does, then its probably good.
So on the other hand I can't agree with Jim since you need a bit of fan bias there to reaffirm the goodness of what made something great. Creators can take risks, not all of them pay off and are necessary - For example I love the Fallout series. I enjoyed Fallout 3, however I still think its really soulless compared to Fallout 1 and 2. However I won't deny it didn't work and I didn't have fun playing Fallout 3, that would be a lie.
In other words, its a series which tries something new whilst keeping to a RPG vein which fans know to expect and has a divided fan base therefore on which titles they prefer.
So if they make a shit game, Its a shit game and vice versa.
I think its really awesome people get very impassioned about their favourite series. Its like fans who love a band's music for years and then the band changes their musical direction. I still think Jim is right in saying you should just reserve judgement to if it "works". If it does, then its probably good.
So on the other hand I can't agree with Jim since you need a bit of fan bias there to reaffirm the goodness of what made something great. Creators can take risks, not all of them pay off and are necessary - For example I love the Fallout series. I enjoyed Fallout 3, however I still think its really soulless compared to Fallout 1 and 2. However I won't deny it didn't work and I didn't have fun playing Fallout 3, that would be a lie.
totally agree jim! thanks for this post. misguided nostalgia is such a strong emotion among the geeks...it's so hard to find gamers who are positive about change and i find it very depressing. this was a breath of fresh air
I forgot to say, the only time I would 110% agree with Jim here is on ridiculous fan boy stuff like Castlevania's music. Alot of the Castlevania fans want or expect the 80s chiptunes in the modern Castlevania games, can you imagine that, seriously?!
Honestly, that is like saying "Bring back all them Arnold Schwarzenneger action movie quotes from the 80s" - I mean, I fuckin love those quotes just like everyone else, however common sense dictates if you did that today in an action movie, people would think it was a fucking comedy movie. So there is a line that does need to be drawn, like a time and place.
However, don't let that deter you from the fact the older stuff was or still is better quality than the newer stuff, quite frankly its the case nowadays in alot of entertainment mediums, specifically music.
Honestly, that is like saying "Bring back all them Arnold Schwarzenneger action movie quotes from the 80s" - I mean, I fuckin love those quotes just like everyone else, however common sense dictates if you did that today in an action movie, people would think it was a fucking comedy movie. So there is a line that does need to be drawn, like a time and place.
However, don't let that deter you from the fact the older stuff was or still is better quality than the newer stuff, quite frankly its the case nowadays in alot of entertainment mediums, specifically music.
Hey Jim, I hope you'll see this out of the 1000s of comments but any idea why iPhone doesn't support your video? Everyone I have to wait to see on my PC because for some reason I can view them on my phone :(
as a spin off i think it's fine, as for DMC i dont like the fact that they changed Dante so much but i may still give it a shot. unlike the bitching over sonic and his looks this dante is far too different from the original. maybe if it was an alternate dante or one of his super great grand kids or something... i might be ok with it.
Though I disagree with the No Mutant's Allowed version of events that requires all people to hate Fallout3 just because, there are two BIG reasons to be disappointed with Fallout 3.
1) Isometric RPGs looked like they were never going to be made again and there are plenty of people, such as myself, who miss them. It wasn't that Fallout 3 weren't going to be exactly like it's predecessors but dropping that style in favour of what initially looked like another generic FPS was a bit of a kick in the nuts.
Look at the similar outrage levelled at the FPS XCom, it looked like was just going to make Bioshock with Xcom slapped over the top, this would be a good game perhaps, but it's not the Xcom we want after 15 years of no Xcom. Look at the bland nothing that resulted from EA's pasting of Syndicate's artifice over the top of a dull shooter.
2) Fallout3's story is retarded. There isn't a single quest or world element in that game that makes any sense.
And the linear railroading of many of the quests completely jettisoned Fallout and Fallout 2's approach of having multiple endings for each quest. These had real choices that actually made sense instead of the usual Fable/Bioshock/Bethesda "pat the puppy"/"kick the puppy" options.
This is something that returned somewhat when Obsidian did New Vegas but for a while it looked like the Fallout Universe I knew and loved was dead in spirit as well as delivery.
That said I think that it's generally agreed that F3 is a good game. It's just a terrible Fallout game.
Now all the kiddies want Fallout games with dumb Bethesda stories that make no sense. (Seriously Bethesda: I love your worlds but your in game narratives are at best dull and at worst mentally disabled.)
1) Isometric RPGs looked like they were never going to be made again and there are plenty of people, such as myself, who miss them. It wasn't that Fallout 3 weren't going to be exactly like it's predecessors but dropping that style in favour of what initially looked like another generic FPS was a bit of a kick in the nuts.
Look at the similar outrage levelled at the FPS XCom, it looked like was just going to make Bioshock with Xcom slapped over the top, this would be a good game perhaps, but it's not the Xcom we want after 15 years of no Xcom. Look at the bland nothing that resulted from EA's pasting of Syndicate's artifice over the top of a dull shooter.
2) Fallout3's story is retarded. There isn't a single quest or world element in that game that makes any sense.
And the linear railroading of many of the quests completely jettisoned Fallout and Fallout 2's approach of having multiple endings for each quest. These had real choices that actually made sense instead of the usual Fable/Bioshock/Bethesda "pat the puppy"/"kick the puppy" options.
This is something that returned somewhat when Obsidian did New Vegas but for a while it looked like the Fallout Universe I knew and loved was dead in spirit as well as delivery.
That said I think that it's generally agreed that F3 is a good game. It's just a terrible Fallout game.
Now all the kiddies want Fallout games with dumb Bethesda stories that make no sense. (Seriously Bethesda: I love your worlds but your in game narratives are at best dull and at worst mentally disabled.)
WTF is this? I disagree with Jim. Its not "just a video game". You don't call something a Big Mac if its Bratwurst. Why not just admit whats going on? They are simply using the name as a marketing tool on a game that could have been called anything? It sucks Jim. Just like Bratwurst. People have a right to be annoyed. Nothing wrong with that. Unlike what your video suggests.
I'm all for innovation and reinvention in games, for christ's sake, we all know that we need it, but while I totally get the silent hill thing, insofar as it's a spin-off, like Alan Wake's American Nightmare could be seen a standalone episode, I have to disagree on DmC. It's when we take originally silly titles, concepts and characters, and try to 'update' them with a new grim and gritty veneer that we really see the problem surrounding games. The very reason why Bayonetta was so popular was the very fact that it was just good, plain fun, didn't take itself seriously, and reflected that through it's design.
The fun of original DMC series was the sheer insanity of the stories, and fast combat and the fact that it took itself seriously from the getgo, and while that may seem silly to us now, it wasn't back then. People don't want to see a series get revamped as an overly dark, harsh game that tries way too hard to be cool...and let's understand this here, I remember Devil May Cry being out, but it's been so long since I played it, I hardly care about it anymore...but the new DmC just seems...boring, like if a series is dead...let it fucking die, there's no sense bringing it back, it'll get people talking, but if it sucks, then it hits any potential future aspect of the franchise too.
What I'm trying to get at here, as I think I digressed just a little too much, is that nothing is stopping these developers from renaming a series and making it their own, then co-opting it into a main series if it's successful. Hell, calling DmC something like 'Devil Trigger: Origin' or some such bullshit would have been a great idea, but if this fails outright to meet expectations, is hammered in reviews, or sells badly, then the chances of anything with the DmC name attached to it shifting copies in future is dead in the water. If you want a game to be new and fresh, don't rely on a brand name to do it...like you said Jim, if a game is good, it's good regardless of its name...so I'd take the opposing viewpoint that using a particular 'brand' or franchise name to draw attention to something that is supposed to be new is the issue...you want a game to be judged on it's own merits, where it's radically different, but still in line with the story of a series? Then give it a new title, and work from there. It may not be fair initially, but a new take on something deserves a new title, Fallout 3 being one of the very few exceptions I have to that idea, as it stuck to the world it was based in. Hell, warcraft had an entire world to explore, so WoW came from that, and sometimes, these things are natural progressions...but what we're seeing here, in the case of DmC, is apparently the same old, same old, no evolution, just a stylistic change, with some concepts altered...therefor, it isn't a Devil May Cry game persae...fucking hell, even an alternative reality situation would have given this game a little wiggle room...anyway, the point being, some series are better left untouched until the 'new' ideas are tested, and really, if I could come up with a name for this game right there, regardless of it's relevence, why can't a publisher?
...oh that's right...franchise names give new titles power, and here we have the circle of shite all over again. In order for this to break, reimaginations need to be given their own titles at first, then be tied into a series...at least give it a reason to be different, instead of going the lazy route and just calling 'Reboot' whenever someone has a new idea about how to do something.
The fun of original DMC series was the sheer insanity of the stories, and fast combat and the fact that it took itself seriously from the getgo, and while that may seem silly to us now, it wasn't back then. People don't want to see a series get revamped as an overly dark, harsh game that tries way too hard to be cool...and let's understand this here, I remember Devil May Cry being out, but it's been so long since I played it, I hardly care about it anymore...but the new DmC just seems...boring, like if a series is dead...let it fucking die, there's no sense bringing it back, it'll get people talking, but if it sucks, then it hits any potential future aspect of the franchise too.
What I'm trying to get at here, as I think I digressed just a little too much, is that nothing is stopping these developers from renaming a series and making it their own, then co-opting it into a main series if it's successful. Hell, calling DmC something like 'Devil Trigger: Origin' or some such bullshit would have been a great idea, but if this fails outright to meet expectations, is hammered in reviews, or sells badly, then the chances of anything with the DmC name attached to it shifting copies in future is dead in the water. If you want a game to be new and fresh, don't rely on a brand name to do it...like you said Jim, if a game is good, it's good regardless of its name...so I'd take the opposing viewpoint that using a particular 'brand' or franchise name to draw attention to something that is supposed to be new is the issue...you want a game to be judged on it's own merits, where it's radically different, but still in line with the story of a series? Then give it a new title, and work from there. It may not be fair initially, but a new take on something deserves a new title, Fallout 3 being one of the very few exceptions I have to that idea, as it stuck to the world it was based in. Hell, warcraft had an entire world to explore, so WoW came from that, and sometimes, these things are natural progressions...but what we're seeing here, in the case of DmC, is apparently the same old, same old, no evolution, just a stylistic change, with some concepts altered...therefor, it isn't a Devil May Cry game persae...fucking hell, even an alternative reality situation would have given this game a little wiggle room...anyway, the point being, some series are better left untouched until the 'new' ideas are tested, and really, if I could come up with a name for this game right there, regardless of it's relevence, why can't a publisher?
...oh that's right...franchise names give new titles power, and here we have the circle of shite all over again. In order for this to break, reimaginations need to be given their own titles at first, then be tied into a series...at least give it a reason to be different, instead of going the lazy route and just calling 'Reboot' whenever someone has a new idea about how to do something.
@Joshua Furlong
that was Hideki Kamiya :P
im all for changes, heck i like how someone gave an example to you jim about killzone series turning into cellshading.
that's what happened to Lost Planet>>>Ex Troopers.
Ex Troopers even impressed me more so than Lost Planet "3"
then again, with a different developer(Spark Unlimited of all people no offense)
i think that a Spin off is good, but as long as it sticks to it's original core.
you could also say the same thing with Castlevania series with Lords of Shadow.
the LOS series are meant to be separated with the original. bascially they're using some of the lore in the original while making it's own style and flavour.
DMC on the other hand ignores all the lore and pretty much became something other than Devil May Cry.
still will wait for more gameplay videos to judge it more.
that was Hideki Kamiya :P
im all for changes, heck i like how someone gave an example to you jim about killzone series turning into cellshading.
that's what happened to Lost Planet>>>Ex Troopers.
Ex Troopers even impressed me more so than Lost Planet "3"
then again, with a different developer(Spark Unlimited of all people no offense)
i think that a Spin off is good, but as long as it sticks to it's original core.
you could also say the same thing with Castlevania series with Lords of Shadow.
the LOS series are meant to be separated with the original. bascially they're using some of the lore in the original while making it's own style and flavour.
DMC on the other hand ignores all the lore and pretty much became something other than Devil May Cry.
still will wait for more gameplay videos to judge it more.
follow
