GamePro: Let Dessicated Franchises Die With Dignity, PLEASE

[waywardOne]

the tiny trend of risking ad sales in order to seems to be growing.

Editorial: Milking it dry

Gaming is one of the only forms of media where this "push it until it burns out" philosophy seems to happen. Sure, we're getting a fifth Fast and Furious movie which I'm not convinced anyone wants, and some may argue that TV shows like How I Met Your Mother are dragging themselves out in an extremely transparent sort of way. But that pales in comparison to the 7 mainline Call of Duty games we've had in eight years (with another to follow later this year, and numerous spinoffs) -- not to mention 15 mainline Final Fantasies, endless variations on Street Fighter and, of course, the 12 Guitar Hero games (plus handheld spinoffs) that we've had since 2005. And don't get me started on sports games.

 

[MetalCraze]

Nothing 'incline' about that.

A trend of posting a "counter-culture" article once in a year while sucking major publishers' cock rest of the time is very popular among advertisement websites like this one.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Actually, why not milk them dry? Isn't it the point of franchises?

 

[JarlFrank]

In the quote you pasted he basically complains "BAWW GAMES GET MANY SEQUELS", which isn't a bad thing in and by itself.

Really, would any of you be pissed if there was a Might and Magic 10 in the style of World of Xeen or M&M 6 or 7? Or a Wizardry 9 in the style of 6, 7 and 8? Would it be a problem if Total War recieved 10 more sequels, each set in a different historical setting but all with the same gameplay style?

Lots of sequels isn't a bad thing in and by itself. Sequels that are either exactly the same but with less interesting level design, or sequels that just utterly shit on their legacy and are completely different in a shitty way, that's the problem.

Having 20 great games in one series is good. Having 6 games with parts 4, 5 and 6 all being utter shit means the series should be laid to rest.

 

[ortucis]

Why the fuck would I want my favorite franchise to die? People who want that should be force fed broken glass through their ass.

I want the franchise to continue no matter what. Also, fifth Fast and Furious movie has The Rock vs Vin Diesel which is just awesome (do note that this is the only other movie in F&F series after the first one which has potential to be fun, but thanks to this author and his kind we would be left with one good F&F movie and few shitty sequels). The author of this moronic article can go fuck himself.

 

[Lord Rocket]

In the quote you pasted he basically complains "BAWW GAMES GET MANY SEQUELS", which isn't a bad thing in and by itself.

Really, would any of you be pissed if there was a Might and Magic 10 in the style of World of Xeen or M&M 6 or 7? Or a Wizardry 9 in the style of 6, 7 and 8? Would it be a problem if Total War recieved 10 more sequels, each set in a different historical setting but all with the same gameplay style?

Lots of sequels isn't a bad thing in and by itself. Sequels that are either exactly the same but with less interesting level design, or sequels that just utterly shit on their legacy and are completely different in a shitty way, that's the problem.

Having 20 great games in one series is good. Having 6 games with parts 4, 5 and 6 all being utter shit means the series should be laid to rest.

The problem is, with your example I mean, is that fully half the games in this fictitious series are shit. That's not a good send off. And yeah people here are upset about the Wizardry sequels because the pictures are bad boo hoo hoo. They might be on consoles as well and as we all know you can't navigate a menu with a gamepad.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you also seem to be working off the assumption a robust set of mechanics can't be transferred to a different series. This isn't common with CRPGs (I guess the best example would be Dark Sun vs. the Gold Box games; they have the same ruleset and more-or-less similar gameplay, but are otherwise quite different) but P&P games do it all the time - look at D20 and it's various offshoots. I've got a SF version of BD&D open in Foxit right now as well, not to mention your GURPSes and BRPs (RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, et cetera) and sundry other generic systems which are designed to do precisely this.
From a narrative perspective it's generally best to deliver a focussed experience that doesn't meander all over the place over the course of a billion games (and do it with one game if humanly possible because the sequels may never happen). Actually isn't half the Codex butthurt about loose ends and all that wait for the sequel shit?
Or if by series you mean a loosely connected bunch of games set in the same world or with recurring characters (this is more typical), then, yeah, I guess having 20 different sequels can work, but then you're running the risk of (a) making it all rather stale, (b) having to top the last adventure every single time, which leads you into potentially very cheesy territory, and (c) tripping yourself up by having to cater for newcomers and old hands, since both groups are going to be after very different things. And frankly it makes the creators look like a bunch of fucking hacks who are milking their solitary good idea to make a few extra bucks.
Better all around just to wind up and reuse the mechanics and engine in order to make something new. Actually why don't we discuss Forgotten Realms for a while?

Awor: yes, unfortunately, that is true. But it isn't actually a good thing.

Ortucis: Fuck

 

[DraQ]

Actually, why not milk them dry? Isn't it the point of franchises?

Overmilking.

Or overfishing - going overfishing to be more precise.

Why the fuck would I want my favorite franchise to die?

Mercykilling.

 

[GarfunkeL]

What's wrong with Forgotten Realms?

In any case, the author just vomited some words on the paper with 0 research into it. Probably didn't even think about the whole subject, just poured it out five minutes before deadline or something.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Some characters will never run out of stories.

The problem is that video games don't have such characters.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

From a narrative perspective it's generally best to deliver a focussed experience that doesn't meander all over the place over the course of a billion games (and do it with one game if humanly possible because the sequels may never happen). Actually isn't half the Codex butthurt about loose ends and all that wait for the sequel shit?
Or if by series you mean a loosely connected bunch of games set in the same world or with recurring characters (this is more typical), then, yeah, I guess having 20 different sequels can work, but then you're running the risk of (a) making it all rather stale, (b) having to top the last adventure every single time, which leads you into potentially very cheesy territory, and (c) tripping yourself up by having to cater for newcomers and old hands, since both groups are going to be after very different things. And frankly it makes the creators look like a bunch of fucking hacks who are milking their solitary good idea to make a few extra bucks.
Better all around just to wind up and reuse the mechanics and engine in order to make something new. Actually why don't we discuss Forgotten Realms for a while?

I think that a series of similar games but in different settings like Goldbox or Call of Duty is the best. I'm not very fond of stuff like a game and then a direct sequel that completely breaks the continuity like BG2 or generally makes the big C&C from the previous game meaningless like Fallout 2.

Awor: yes, unfortunately, that is true. But it isn't actually a good thing.

It's a good thing when we're talking about franchises . It may or may not be different if we would talk about game series.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Nerevarine could be the protagonist in many games, even without real relation between stories. Same as Conan, Batman and other such characters. They walk into the sunset at the end of one story, for they live a lifetime of adventure. You can give them a definitive ending, but that's just the final adventure in their life full of them, isn't it?

Now on the other hand, characters like The Nameless One or Squad 7 are examples of characters who can't and shouldn't be used in sequels, simply because their story is the only one to tell about them.

 

[ortucis]

I have enjoyed every COD game so I am more than happy as a gamer to have more of the same. There will always be new IP's by new developers, infact a lot of AAA developers after getting fired have started by new Indie studios where they are getting ready to launch new IPs.

Pay attention to them if you want new stuff. But places like Kotaku spend one shitty post talking about these people and then spend ages publishing GEARS OF WAR 3 EXCLUSIVE PREVIEW LOLOLOL!

In short, let the sequels be made (might be shocking but there are fans who want more of the same). Cover Indie developers for more games else stop bitching.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Really, would any of you be pissed if there was a Might and Magic 10 in the style of World of Xeen or M&M 6 or 7?

Yeah, I would. MM6 and 7 are crap. 3, 4 & 5 is where it's at.

 

[Volourn]

This anti sequel bullshit is just that bullshit. if I enjoy soemthing, I want fuckin' more of it. So fuck off!

As long as said sequels are good, obviously.


I'll take more FO1s and FO2s than APs or LHs.

R00fles!

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I don't see any advantages in letting a franchise die.

If no new games come out, the franchise disappears and I'm relegated to playing the existent titles over and over, and talking about them with a handful of guys who remember them.

If new games come out, and they're shitty, no harm done- it was going to disappear anyway, and the older, better games still exist. If anything, the shitty games draw attention to the franchise, and a new, good game is now a possibility. For example, if there was no FO3, there would be no F:NV (ignore this if you think NV is a travesty against all that is falloutian; the Van Buren docs are still there for you to masturbate over them)

If new games come out, and they're good, everyone is happy.

 

[Lord Rocket]

What's wrong with Forgotten Realms?

Well nothing really, assuming you like pot-pourri settings. Aren't we all a bit sick of it by now though?

The general thrust of opinion in this thread seems very un-monocled to me. We're against commercialism and therefore the sequel grind, aren't we?

 

[Drakron]

I think the article lost credibility when it named "Final Fantasy" as that series are is name only, none are sequels (besides FF X-2), I could say the same about Dragon Quest.

As its true we seen franchises being run into the ground but its not as problematic as Hollywood scrapping having moved on beyond scrapping the bottom of the barrel, after all the issue is with "adventures" as I dont think people were thinking Ultima 7 was "milking" unlike Fable 3.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Final Fantasy milking, you say?

Plus there are sequels other than X-II.

Final Fantasy Tactics A2: Grimoire of the Rift - A sequel to Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, for the Nintendo DS.

Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings - A sequel following the events after Final Fantasy XII, for the Nintendo DS.

Final Fantasy IV: The After Years - A sequel to Final Fantasy IV, originally released for Japanese Mobile Phones on February 18, 2008.

Final Fantasy XIII-2 is the sequel to Final Fantasy XIII, a part of the Fabula Nova Crystallis series. It was announced at the "Square Enix 1st Production Department Premiere" event on January 18, 2011 and is set to be released in Winter 2011 on PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

etc etc

 

[Lord Rocket]

FF has pretty much collapsed under the weight of the themes common to the series. Although the settings are frequently different they still share similar mechanics and character archetypes so... yeah. There's plenty of common threads there.

 

[deuxhero]

What's wrong with Forgotten Realms?

It isn't the realms per-se, it's that all the games there are set on the fucking sword coast (bar MoTB and half of SoZ). The most generic piece of shit in otherwise half decent setting.

Final Fantasy milking, you say?

Plus there are sequels other than X-II.

Final Fantasy Tactics A2: Grimoire of the Rift - A sequel to Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, for the Nintendo DS.

etc etc

Which itself is a sequel to Final Fantasy Tactics (A2 also closes some parts of 13's story apparently). Unlike the others, it's noticeable better than the first (FFTA is vastly worse than FFT in plot and gameplay but playable).

 

[Kashmir Slippers]

I think it just depends on the overall quality of the series and the individual's tastes in genre.

I, for one, don't really like FPS's, so I think that the constant Halo or CoD rehashes are just silly money-grabs and the fans just part of a stupid hivemind.

That being said, I do like strategy games, so I find myself more likely to buy new sequels on a general basis. I do, however, expect there to be at least a good bit of improvement over the last installation before I make my purchase. I feel similarly about expansions: I will buy it if it adds significantly to the game, but it it includes just some stupid side-mission or new items (I'm looking at you The Sims) then I feel that the company is just milking the game.

I do think that the companies that just arbitrarily decide that they will make a certain number of games in a series should be shot. I liked Fables 1 and 2 for what they were, but Fable 3 just made me sad. I think I remember Lionhead announcing that they would make six Fable games in total, but I fear how much worse they could make the series. As a fan, I would rather them let it die then keep cranking out a stream of progressively worse and worse sequels.