Are game that bomb a blessing in disguise for franchise?

[meiam]

I've been thinking about long running franchise and how it seem that a lot of them tend to have case where one entry will fail just to be followed by a really successful game. For example, RE6 came out to, let say, lukewarm reception, this was followed by RE7 where they were willing to reinvent the game, breathing fresh air into the franchise. Or Zelda skyward sword being followed by Breath of the wild.

On the flip side you have something like Pokemon which has been doing the exact same things for decades now with, more or less, the same level of success for every entry and this has lead to some pretty serious stagnation. Even legend of arceus, which attempt to shake the formula, seems to be half assed by the dev and only considered as a side entry.

But at the same time this could just be because only the succesful reinvention come to mind and plenty of franchise with one game that bomb are just followed by no more game and fade from memory. Any example one way or another you can think of?

 

[BrawlMan]

For example, RE6 came out to, let say, lukewarm reception, this was followed by RE7 where they were willing to reinvent the game, breathing fresh air into the franchise. Or Zelda skyward sword being followed by Breath of the wild.

Here's the funny thing about re6, it wasn't a bomb. Reception was mixed and lukewarm, but it actually sold more than Resident Evil 5. By 1.5 million copies more. It's just word of mouth spread in the field started dropping afterward. And while Resident Evil 7 at better reception, it didn't sell nearly as much as RE6. Especially in Japan. Believe it or not, the Japanese do not like the first person re games. Plus, during the seventh generation, it was around that time where nearly every triple a developer was saying their title had to sell this x amount of copies or it will sell below expectations are considered a failure. Even though it did sell a lot.

A bomb can do wonders, but not all the time. Sometimes of a game is done so badly or perform so poorly, good luck seeing another one in the franchise. Sometimes it's for the best, most of the time, it's not. Especially if the franchise, title, series had a good thing going.

DmC's failure did give Capcom a good smack in the face. Though the problem could have been easy solved had they decided not to reboot in the first place. It took 10 years for DMC 5 to come out, but ended up being the now best selling game in the franchise. Just beating four and the rest. The reboot had some neat ideas, but it was mostly poor execution. The execution was delivered better in the 5th official entry in the series.

On the other hand, you have games like the Crash games from 7th generation which bombed and killed the franchise for a long while. Because no one had a consistent idea of what Crash should be, or just tossing a whole bunch of ideas where a majority of them didn't work or things are rushed. The franchise eventually came back, but it's once again in an ambiguous fate because of the publisher.

Video Games / Franchise Killer - TV Tropes

Examples 007 Legends' poor sales and critical reception put an end to James Bond video games for a time, with Activision consequently dropping the Bond license. It would be 8 years before IO Interactive would pick it up and announce a new Bond …

tvtropes.org

 

[Hawki]

I don't think Skyward Sword is a good example - it's generally regarded as a weaker title, but it didn't bomb, or anything. Yes, you could argue that Breath of the Wild is a response to Skyward Sword, but the idea of LoZ games being too linear is one that's built up for ages.

As for RE6, as stated, it didn't bomb commercially, and RE7 sold fewer copies, though I will grant you that RE7 probably did revitalize interest in the franchise. That said, speaking personally, I really don't like RE7. I don't like RE6 either, but, well, RE6 is my least favourite mainline installment, RE7 is my second least favourite. Both games have their own problems for me, and if anything, RE7 felt like an overcorrection.

 

[Worgen]

Its possible for them to learn from a bomb and try and mix things up. But its more likely to kill off a franchise. Plus, even if they do mix things up, its not guaranteed to be good. See the Command and Conquer series.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I'm not going to go look up any figures, but I'd bet a dollar to a bent dime that a bad sequel has killed more franchises than have been saved by one. For instance: Nobody's lining up to make a new Thief game after the travesty that was Thi4f.

 

[Dalisclock]

I'm not going to go look up any figures, but I'd bet a dollar to a bent dime that a bad sequel has killed more franchises than have been saved by one. For instance: Nobody's lining up to make a new Thief game after the travesty that was Thi4f.

True, but games like Dishonored kinda took over for Thief anyway.

 

[Hawki]

Its possible for them to learn from a bomb and try and mix things up. But its more likely to kill off a franchise. Plus, even if they do mix things up, its not guaranteed to be good. See the Command and Conquer series.

I don't think that's a good example though. I assume by mixing things up, you're referring to Tiberian Twilight, but Red Alert 3 (which came before it) wasn't a bomb. That, and the reason TT turned out the way it did was because it was originally intended to be a spin-off rather than a mainline entry.

 

[Satinavian]

Considering that a really bombing entry often leads to the end of a series or a studio, i don' thinj is is a blessing in disguise.

Sure, there is a possibility that someone else later picks up a beloved IP and restarts it but thet is far from guaranteed. Not everyone gets a second chance like Master of Orion.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

True, but games like Dishonored kinda took over for Thief anyway.

I played Dishonored and it felt like a middling Thief fan-mission. Then I played the new Thief and it felt like a middling Dishonored fan-mission.

 

[BrawlMan]

I played Dishonored and it felt like a middling Thief fan-mission. Then I played the new Thief and it felt like a middling Dishonored fan-mission.

Uuuuuhhhhhh.....can't win for losing???

 

[Gyrobot]

Considering that a really bombing entry often leads to the end of a series or a studio, i don' thinj is is a blessing in disguise.

Sure, there is a possibility that someone else later picks up a beloved IP and restarts it but thet is far from guaranteed. Not everyone gets a second chance like Master of Orion.

Some studios has to learn from their mistakes. Look at the devs for Metroid Dread, they produced what was considered the predecessor of the soul series that did terrible in reviews and killed the studio at the same time. Then they proceed to be responsible for being the studio that made Castlevania Lords Of Shadows

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I think it would depend. A bad Mario or Zelda game isn't going to kill off the franchise. I suppose a flop might convince a stale franchise to change a bit as long as it had the momentum behind it to keep going.

Something smaller might not do so well.

Dawn of War 3 for example. It was more of a resurrection attempt after the parent publisher went down but I'd say it killed off any further attempts. Like if Frankenstein's monster had burst into flames on reanimation and then blundered round on fire setting light to everything until it fell out of the window and landed on the floor hundreds of feet below, only be hit by a freight train full of petrol that then explodes.
This was mainly just an excuse to talk about Dawn of War.

 

[Worgen]

Dawn of War 3 for example. It was more of a resurrection attempt after the parent publisher went down but I'd say it killed off any further attempts. Like if Frankenstein's monster had burst into flames on reanimation and then blundered round on fire setting light to everything until it fell out of the window and landed on the floor hundreds of feet below, only be hit by a freight train full of petrol that then explodes.
This was mainly just an excuse to talk about Dawn of War.

By making a weird whiny analogy and a lot of assumptions?

 

[Zykon TheLich]

By making a weird whiny analogy and a lot of assumptions?

I wouldn't have said whiny and only really one assumption, but otherwise yes.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

More game franchises are long overdue for bombs and proper critiquing. Looking at most of Activision, EA, and Ubisoft franchises in particular. Their monetizing and derivatively bland formulas that serve only to pad game length, let alone still being dished out in yearly/bi-yearly installments have gotten free passes for too long.

 

[Worgen]

More game franchises are long overdue for bombs and proper critiquing. Looking at most of Activision, EA, and Ubisoft franchises in particular. Their monetizing and derivatively bland formulas that serve only to pad game length, let alone still being dished out in yearly/bi-yearly installments have gotten free passes for too long.

Are they somehow being inflated in reviews? I mean take cod, which you are clearly referencing. None of the mainline games have been bad, they all play well and are the bombastic arcade shooting action that people expect. I suppose you could review each new one by comparing it to all the ones that came before but that sounds like a really bad way to do a review for a series where the games aren't interconnected.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Are they somehow being inflated in reviews? I mean take cod, which you are clearly referencing. None of the mainline games have been bad, they all play well and are the bombastic arcade shooting action that people expect. I suppose you could review each new one by comparing it to all the ones that came before but that sounds like a really bad way to do a review for a series where the games aren't interconnected.

The score depreciation that usually happens when the same thing is done repeatedly within a franchise with little to no technical, artistic or gameplay/mechanics improvements doesn’t seem to apply to these big publishers. Reviewers don’t think critically enough in general.

 

[Worgen]

The score depreciation that usually happens when the same thing is done repeatedly within a franchise with little to no technical, artistic or gameplay/mechanics improvements doesn’t seem to apply to these big publishers. Reviewers don’t think critically enough in general.

I don't think thats a good way to do things. It would mean that any long running franchise would really need to mix things up or suffer depreciation despite what fans what from it. The Sonic series is a good example of this, they love to change a lot between major entries and it really doesn't work well. Compare that to Zelda where the games tend to play very similarly but are really solidly designed. Should Sonic be scoring higher since it keeps throwing stuff at the wall then Zelda since it tends to play it safe?

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I don't think thats a good way to do things. It would mean that any long running franchise would really need to mix things up or suffer depreciation despite what fans what from it. The Sonic series is a good example of this, they love to change a lot between major entries and it really doesn't work well. Compare that to Zelda where the games tend to play very similarly but are really solidly designed. Should Sonic be scoring higher since it keeps throwing stuff at the wall then Zelda since it tends to play it safe?

I’m only pointing out that these big publishers seem to be exempt from the depreciation rule that applies to most other franchises. Although at least some outlets (mostly YouTubers though) are taking aim at Far Cry 6 for being phoned in yet again. All these games should be getting no higher than a 70 average.

Zelda changed things up quite a bit with BotW and was critically and commercially successful. I do think Nintendo’s hardware is overrated though too, since while they do innovate with design, some of it is gimmicky and they are always at least a generation behind everyone else technically. Their proprietary media formats with no way to view anything like pictures, music, video, etc. are a sore point too, where others would be criticized for still using them. There’s no excuse for either with the billion$ they’ve accumulated off the Wii generation.

 

[Worgen]

I’m only pointing out that these big publishers seem to be exempt from the depreciation rule that applies to most other franchises. Although at least some outlets (mostly YouTubers though) are taking aim at Far Cry 6 for being phoned in yet again. All these games should be getting no higher than a 70 average.

Zelda changed things up quite a bit with BotW and was critically and commercially successful. I do think Nintendo’s hardware is overrated though too, since while they do innovate with design, some of it is gimmicky and they are always at least a generation behind everyone else technically. Their proprietary media formats with no way to view anything like pictures, music, video, etc. are a sore point too, where others would be criticized for still using them. There’s no excuse for either with the billion$ they’ve accumulated off the Wii generation.

You really shouldn't lump professional reviewers and youtubers into the same boat. Its like news papers and tabloids all being combined under the heading of media.

Anyway, what games should be getting no higher then 70? The farcry series? Assassins Creed? COD? Battlefield?

BotW did change things up pretty decently, but before then the gameplay for Zelda was very similar, even the items in the games tended to be pretty similar, with the new stuff not being as useful as the old stuff.

What do you mean proprietary media formats? And what are they not an excuse for?