EDIT TOPIC:
This started as a simple discussion of game franchises reaching the end of their days(See original below). However, more questions have been raised, such as; what makes a franchise last? What makes a "Classic" game?
Mario has been stomping on gumbas for nearly 2 decades now, and yet we still pick up and play the games whenever they're released. Interestingly enough, the originals, now ages old, are still fun to play. Other games, take Quake, for example, are fun while they last but die out quickly.
An apt comparison for this phenomenon is Classic Literature. Though it's quite a stretch to compare Super Mario 64 to, say Dickens' "Great Expectations," it is a nice example. The reason books like Great Expectations, written years ago, are still thought in classrooms today is because regardless of historical context, the themes of the novel still apply.
Mario 64 was a launch title for the N64, yet it is still easily playable and fun today. This is one of the reasons i rank it as one of the best games ever made, as Great Expectations is often thought of as the greatest novel.
If Mario is Great Expectations, then is Halo Harry Potter? the Da Vinci Code? a page-turning. . . game. Its wildly popular, fun while it lasts, but is at its core only above average.
So What makes a franchise last forever? Nostalgia, simple gameplay, memorable characters?
Discuss!
-------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of game franchises that seem to have been going on since. . well, eternity, but have never really been all that good. For these games, "milking the cash cow for all it's worth" is an understatement. These games suffer from developers thinking if one is good, they all are, but seriously, game design is supposed to be creative, and there are some games that just won't die.
On the other hand, there are some "classic" games which will inevitably last forever, like Mario and Zelda.
----Terminal Games----
Tomb Raider:
Face it, there are only two reasons this game had any success. They're two very large, luscious reasons, but they're still the only things keeping this franchise alive. When you actually look at it, there isn't really much of a game behind the boobs- controlling Lara feels like pushing a giant boulder made of jello up a cliff; and since when can lions absorb 900 bullets? Having to empty three clips into a jungle cat is hardly satisfying. The series is basically the same mediocre platformer which has been done far too many times, with each iteration becoming less and less original or fun. I think its time for the developers to kill this franchise, or send Lara back to a training-bra and make a game that doesn't suck.
Dynasty Warriors:
Heres the recipe for making a Dynasty Warriors game: take the original, copy and paste. That's it. They're all the same, and none of them are fun. The game promises massive, LOTR style epic battles, and delivers ludicrously easy, poorly designed and empty missions. The button-mashing fighting scheme is about as interesting as typing in a word processor. There was one sly attempt to market "Samurai Warriors," but it is, yet again, exactly the same game. I don't care how many idiots buy them, please for the love of god stop.
The "Conflict" series:
This is pretty self-explanatory: http://www.metacritic.com/search/process?sb=0&tfs=all&ts=conflict&ty=3&x=31&y=18
Your games suck, stop making them.
----Personal Choices----
Command & Conquer:
Don't get me wrong, I love the series, it's a classic. But ever since C&C 2, and Westwood was consumed by those money-hoarding, game-ruining bastards a EA, it has lost its soul. I know "Tiberium Sun" has received good reviews, but it's just not the same. Please stop shitting on my favorite rts, EA.
CryEverything:
We get it, you're company's name is "Crytek," you made the "CryEngine," but Jesus, guys, "FarCry," "Crysis"? Get over yourselves. They've made a lovely game engine, but they keep making games that take place on the same island with the same plot and the same motherfucking palm trees. And whats the deal with these huge battles on some deserted island? I'm not sure what the plot of Crysis is, but I think once we've developed Nano-Suits, we won't be fighting over some godforsaken jungle. The CryEngine is awesome, but instead of using it for what it's made for: huge, open, beautifully rendered worlds, which could be used to make awesome cities with expansive plotlines and freedom of pursuit, we get the same linear shooter over and over again. For fucksake, guys, think of a NEW GAME!
James Bond:
As long as there are guns, and as long as there are women, there will be bond movies. And as long as there are bond movies, there will be the accompanying games. Goldeneye is not only the only good game based on a film, but it's also one of the most famous shooters ever. That flame isn't going to reignite, so stop trying.
Both of these topics are up for a (hopefully well-thought and rational) discussion! Give me you thoughts, opinions, and arguments!
This started as a simple discussion of game franchises reaching the end of their days(See original below). However, more questions have been raised, such as; what makes a franchise last? What makes a "Classic" game?
Mario has been stomping on gumbas for nearly 2 decades now, and yet we still pick up and play the games whenever they're released. Interestingly enough, the originals, now ages old, are still fun to play. Other games, take Quake, for example, are fun while they last but die out quickly.
An apt comparison for this phenomenon is Classic Literature. Though it's quite a stretch to compare Super Mario 64 to, say Dickens' "Great Expectations," it is a nice example. The reason books like Great Expectations, written years ago, are still thought in classrooms today is because regardless of historical context, the themes of the novel still apply.
Mario 64 was a launch title for the N64, yet it is still easily playable and fun today. This is one of the reasons i rank it as one of the best games ever made, as Great Expectations is often thought of as the greatest novel.
If Mario is Great Expectations, then is Halo Harry Potter? the Da Vinci Code? a page-turning. . . game. Its wildly popular, fun while it lasts, but is at its core only above average.
So What makes a franchise last forever? Nostalgia, simple gameplay, memorable characters?
Discuss!
-------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of game franchises that seem to have been going on since. . well, eternity, but have never really been all that good. For these games, "milking the cash cow for all it's worth" is an understatement. These games suffer from developers thinking if one is good, they all are, but seriously, game design is supposed to be creative, and there are some games that just won't die.
On the other hand, there are some "classic" games which will inevitably last forever, like Mario and Zelda.
----Terminal Games----
Tomb Raider:
Face it, there are only two reasons this game had any success. They're two very large, luscious reasons, but they're still the only things keeping this franchise alive. When you actually look at it, there isn't really much of a game behind the boobs- controlling Lara feels like pushing a giant boulder made of jello up a cliff; and since when can lions absorb 900 bullets? Having to empty three clips into a jungle cat is hardly satisfying. The series is basically the same mediocre platformer which has been done far too many times, with each iteration becoming less and less original or fun. I think its time for the developers to kill this franchise, or send Lara back to a training-bra and make a game that doesn't suck.
Dynasty Warriors:
Heres the recipe for making a Dynasty Warriors game: take the original, copy and paste. That's it. They're all the same, and none of them are fun. The game promises massive, LOTR style epic battles, and delivers ludicrously easy, poorly designed and empty missions. The button-mashing fighting scheme is about as interesting as typing in a word processor. There was one sly attempt to market "Samurai Warriors," but it is, yet again, exactly the same game. I don't care how many idiots buy them, please for the love of god stop.
The "Conflict" series:
This is pretty self-explanatory: http://www.metacritic.com/search/process?sb=0&tfs=all&ts=conflict&ty=3&x=31&y=18
Your games suck, stop making them.
----Personal Choices----
Command & Conquer:
Don't get me wrong, I love the series, it's a classic. But ever since C&C 2, and Westwood was consumed by those money-hoarding, game-ruining bastards a EA, it has lost its soul. I know "Tiberium Sun" has received good reviews, but it's just not the same. Please stop shitting on my favorite rts, EA.
CryEverything:
We get it, you're company's name is "Crytek," you made the "CryEngine," but Jesus, guys, "FarCry," "Crysis"? Get over yourselves. They've made a lovely game engine, but they keep making games that take place on the same island with the same plot and the same motherfucking palm trees. And whats the deal with these huge battles on some deserted island? I'm not sure what the plot of Crysis is, but I think once we've developed Nano-Suits, we won't be fighting over some godforsaken jungle. The CryEngine is awesome, but instead of using it for what it's made for: huge, open, beautifully rendered worlds, which could be used to make awesome cities with expansive plotlines and freedom of pursuit, we get the same linear shooter over and over again. For fucksake, guys, think of a NEW GAME!
James Bond:
As long as there are guns, and as long as there are women, there will be bond movies. And as long as there are bond movies, there will be the accompanying games. Goldeneye is not only the only good game based on a film, but it's also one of the most famous shooters ever. That flame isn't going to reignite, so stop trying.
Both of these topics are up for a (hopefully well-thought and rational) discussion! Give me you thoughts, opinions, and arguments!
