franchise scat

[Oriebam]

If I make a sequel to a game and change its genre/significantly change it's gameplay* and it is a very good game, does the franchise buttsex become consensual?
Or is it still BETRAYAL?


*Since it's the subject... gradual changes are okay somehow?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Would be better if you provided some good examples to get it rolling, otherwise this will become another "let me tell you why Fallout 3: New Vegas sucks" thread.

I'll post some if I can think of any. Wonder Boy, maybe? Goes from simple platformer to action adventure with light rpg elements. Not very significant changes once you actually play the games, mas foda-se.

http://www.1up.com/features/total-makeo ... set=5&cId=

 

[Paperclip]

Super Mario RPG was good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EHf2ekpXLA&feature=related

Actually I never think much about this. I guess it doesn't bother me. What matters is the quality of the product.

 

[Shannow]

Then it's a bad sequel. Doesn't mean it's a bad game. DS3 could have been a good aRPG even with the lore/gameplay/mechanics rape. Since it managed to be far shittier than the originals on the gameplay/mechanics part (truly an accomplishment), it fucked up all the way.
The question is: Why make a sequel if you want to change everything in the first place?
Just make your own game, no feelings hurt, no expectations not met. *shrug*

 

[Angthoron]

Well why not do it the Might and Magic/ Heroes of Might and Magic way? If it's a TBS, it's Heroes, if it's an RPG, it's just M&M. Simple, clear distinction, obvious belonging to the same franchise, as well.

I guess it's just not nextgen enough.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

Well if you just use the setting and make something like, say, Metroid Tactical Operations Command, it's not really a sequel.

But then, if you make Metroid 20 and it's a side-scrolling run-and-gun game, a good one but still more similar to Metal Slug than Metroid... Well, it's not a rape if it's good, but you have failed in naming your game and many fans will feel that this is the direction the franchise is taking and it's wrong.

 

[DraQ]

No.

Spinoffs are ok, as long as they remain separate from the series' proper.

 

[Norfleet]

I see nothing wrong with a franchise branching out into other genres, as long as they don't try to bill it as a sequel to the original games.

 

[Jack]

No.

Spinoffs are ok, as long as they remain separate from the series' proper.

 

[Eyeball]

The Might & Magic series did this right - made a bunch of highly praised RPGs, then made a spinoff series of equally highly praised turn-based strategy games while continuing the original series.

 

[JarlFrank]

No.

Spinoffs are ok, as long as they remain separate from the series' proper.

Yes.

The Might & Magic series did this right - made a bunch of highly praised RPGs, then made a spinoff series of equally highly praised turn-based strategy games while continuing the original series.

Exactly.

 

[MetalCraze]

Console shooters into which everything is turned these days can't be good by default, thus OP question does not compute

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Yes as it's still a sequel to a game, not a movie or a book or something. Without continuity of gameplay, it's worthless as a sequel.

 

[baronjohn]

I can't think of any good examples. I guess Duke Nukem 2 -> Duke 3D?

 

[MetalCraze]

Battlezone -> Battlezone

 

[sea]

I think it really depends on the game's legacy, if that makes sense. For instance, if I make an amazing shooter and then a year later, decide to turn it into a shooter/RPG hybrid in the sequel, I don't think that's a problem, since there's no real long-standing expectations and you're only (presumably) building on what people enjoy. As for spin-offs, that's fine too - something along the lines of C&C Renegade for example.

The problems arise when you get a game with a long-standing legacy, reputation, or niche genre cred and then try to change it too dramatically. I'm fairly comfortable with Fallout: New Vegas, for example, because it adheres to much of what made the original games good (though it's not to their level and has its share of issues), and it also kind of fits in with the world and themes. When you get something like XCOM, though, which not only doesn't really fit with the franchise in the first place but also pisses over fans' expectations, that to me is completely unacceptable and ill-advised.

Of course, if you go too far away from the original and/or make a shitty and/or unnecessary game (i.e. turning Planescape: Torment into a shooter), then you are subhuman scum and deserve painful death.

 

[DraQ]

No.

Spinoffs are ok, as long as they remain separate from the series' proper.

Yes.

Also,

as, due to the way question was phrased I answered 'no' in the poll, while it should've been 'yes'.

Clarification:

Yes - to it being bad, no to the raep being consensual, unless it's spinoff.

Major gameplay changes are only ok if they're improvements and preserve the genre and the gameplay paradigm. Introducing hybrid genre elements may be ok if they actually enrich the gameplay and make it more complex as opposed to dumbing it down.

 

[Excommunicator]

For instance, if I make an amazing shooter and then a year later, decide to turn it into a shooter/RPG hybrid in the sequel, I don't think that's a problem, since there's no real long-standing expectations and you're only (presumably) building on what people enjoy.

I would say this is a very big change. If I had ownership of an FPS IP and someone came to me and suggested making a sequel "except we are going to add RPG elements to it to build on what people enjoy", I'd be annoyed and offended. This kind of reasoning is actually pretty toxic. It's about as bad as "lets remake this old TBS game but we can build on what people enjoy by making it more action oriented and story focused and now that we have the technology we can do the combat real-time, because people will enjoy that"

I find changing around a game a very dishonest and disrespectful thing to do. If you cared about what the game represented and its core qualities in a way that goes beyond making money from it, you wouldn't even be considering it. There needs to be some integrity in this kind of thing, and money just can't bring integrity. You need a guiding moral or principle that tells you 'this is what I believe is most important, and this is the limit to what I will allow happen, so long as I care about this product'. Working without some clear principles is how everything turns to shit, which is pretty apparent these days.

I still love my sequels and spin-offs. I love seeing new things come into an IP, but I don't want that re-imagined work being labelled as a faithful sequel if those changes aren't natural follow-ons from the original (especially tech-related). Many of my favourite games have been 'sequels' that re-imagine the original game, but that's still no excuse. 'Sequel' as a term has a specific meaning. Don't masquerade as something you aren't. If you feel unsure about what to call it, there are plenty of other terms available

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequel#Chronologies

Of course, adding interactivity into the definition makes the term far more complicated, but it is not difficult to identify the things that define the game originally, and if the concept re-imagined is strong enough then you won't need to whore out your product as being a strict and faithful sequel because it will be able to stand on its own strengths.

 

[Aldebaran]

As one of my favourite games is Metroid Prime, I have to say no.

In fact, it hurts more when the rape tries to masquerade as a faithful adaptation. But then they fill it with where's waldo puzzles, horrible VO, a "developed" protagonist, linear level design in a series known for exploration, utterly generic music, the worst power up explanation I have ever seen, a 3 minute ending cinematic going off on some philosophical tangent for unknown reasons, cinematics to advance the story, cinematics, a character known for blowing up planets turning into the developer's waifu, replacing the feeling of loneliness in a hostile environment with a comic relief black sidekick, a conspiracy that no one cares about (including the writers), somehow contradicting the already barebones canon of the series, visuals so outdated that they are outdated on an already outdated system, horrible enemy design which looks like the stuff of cheap JRPGs, screwing up the design (somehow) of something as simple as a space dra--WHY DID YOU DO THIS SAKAMOTO.

EDIT: If a game is a direct sequel, and not just a spin off, then this is usually very obviously a bad idea.

 

[Hamster]

I have no problem with spin-offs but i don't think question was about them.

When franchise is redefined in a way that rules out the possibility of a "true" sequel it's a big no.
Especially if it's combined with PR campaign explaining how original game actully sucks and it's fans are dumb nerds with nostalgia.

 

[Shannow]

Major gameplay changes are only ok if they're improvements and preserve the genre and the gameplay paradigm. Introducing hybrid genre elements may be ok if they actually enrich the gameplay and make it more complex as opposed to dumbing it down.

I wanted to disagree, but then I read it again. "Major...changes...preserving the genre and the gameplay paradigm"? Care to give an example? I can't think of any.
And I still disagree with the second sentence. Sequels should be pure. If you don't want to make a similar game but like (your own!) setting, make a spin-off. (People using other people's babiessettings is very shitty, too.)
The one reason I don't consider NV to have raped Fallout(tm) is not because it was faithful to the setting, but because it didn't call itself FO4.

 

[DraQ]

Major gameplay changes are only ok if they're improvements and preserve the genre and the gameplay paradigm. Introducing hybrid genre elements may be ok if they actually enrich the gameplay and make it more complex as opposed to dumbing it down.

I wanted to disagree, but then I read it again. "Major...changes...preserving the genre and the gameplay paradigm"? Care to give an example? I can't think of any.

Wizardry 8?

Going from not-even-2D grid crawler to full 3D with formations, complex scenery, movement and positioning of both party and magic attacks is pretty big change.

And I still disagree with the second sentence. Sequels should be pure.

Hexen 2?
System Shock 2?

In both cases they went from straight FPS (survival horror FPS in case of SS, dungeon-crawl themed FPS in case of Hexen) to an FPS with some RPG elements.

Are there any problems with that?