We discussed this before, Paradise didn't kill the franchise. EA's lack of commitment to do anything afterward, aside from a spin-off no remembers. No one remembers Burnout: Crash. What didn't help matters was that whatever elements of Burnout went into the future Need For Speed titles.
Paradise killed the franchise. Burnout had a healthy following and committed players, then Paradise went open world as every racing game should (/s), and took out the spectacular and violent crashes that'd become a staple cemented with Revenge's popularity. Paradise was a failed experiment whose failure made EA walk away from it altogether. You're right; I don't recall Crash, but as such, that leads me to believe it was a limp-dick, noncommittal "another one" testing the waters to see if anyone cared anymore. As we've not seen a proper Burnout in 14 years, I think I'm right.
I feel like racing games have mostly died out as a genre. Outside of a few sim-likes and the rare Mario Kart we dont really see many arcade racers outside. The Crew games tried to do something with it but they were lame so....
Considering how well Paradise did, I would not call those sales a failure. It's just another case of EA being idiotically blinded by greed and not knowing to do with something so simple. All they had to do was the back the basics approach, but they couldn't even do that. Like I said before, whatever Burnout elements are left, they just took them and threw them into their Need for Speed games. I know there's people who dislike the game, or suddenly started coming out of the Woodward when Max and his friends stated how they didn't like the game, but most people enjoy it. I have no problem admitting it's flaws, and I still consider Revenge the best in the entire franchise. Yet, I wouldn't even call Paradise a franchise killer.
Only on the AAA side of the industry. AA and Indie got arcade style racing games for days. Especially if you look on the Nintendo Switch. It's proof that these arcade racers are viable, but a majority of these companies don't want to commit, because they don't make all the money in the entire universe. Nor will they satisfied the shareholders and bean counters not without the mixture DLC that's full of crap. as we witnesses past you couple weeks, not even Sony's immune to make you pay real world money for some freaking cars you're supposed to unlock by playing the God damn game!
I wonder how much fun is prevent because car companies don't want video games to actively destroy their cars. GT7 has very minor damage phyics and their excuse is that car manufactorers did not want their cars to be destroyable. It might not be true, but Forza doesn't do damage on cars really either so there might be merit to it. Also IIRC Burnout doesn't use real cars in their games so that's why they can damage the fuck out of them with no restraint.
Fair enough, but I'd ask why did the franchise basically stop there? Franchises die when they cease to be lucrative for those tasked with making them. Paradise was the last time EA, a notorious money whore, decided to go all-in on a full installment. Why? Because it failed in many areas to meet the expectations they'd mastered in Revenge, and we've not seen a proper Burnout since. The gun may not have kill the franchise, but the bullet fired from it certainly did.
Because the game didn't make all the money in the entire universe. Like I said before, sales for the game weren't awful and were actually good. Maybe not as good as Revenge, but still more than good. An early sign of EA's overwhelming greed, nothing more and nothing less. NFS they're barely trying any more either. Heat is decent, but they got to do more than that.
That part is 100% true. Back then you could use real cars, but ever since Sony cavedn to the car companies demands for Gran Turismo 2, all car companies went in on making sure everything look pristine as not to affect their product, which is a load of bull. If that's the case, they might as well do the same for all cars portrayed in movies. They don't have that dumb clause in action movies, racing movies, nor realistic racing movies.
I got plenty of old NFS games to give me company for days. Plus, EA barely releases titles for that franchise anymore. As for Burnout, I got plenty of other alternative options.
I'm not talking about financial success. Many a game has been financially successful, and still not met fan expectations. Hell, I and many others bought Paradise expecting Revenge to be improved upon, and were sorely disappointed, but those $60 purchases still add to their total revenue. I'm talking about it not garnering the kind of "success" that keeps fans (hence the publisher) hungry for more. Paradise didn't do that; it very much wasn't that. It suckered in and disappointed many of the early adopters on name recognition alone. I don't care if it sold a billion units; if it killed interest in the franchise to the point EA decided "meh, we're done here," it's a franchise killer. We don't have to agree, but when I look at CoD, Halo, Battlefield, etc, franchises that no matter the cost, publishers will insist on milking them despite missteps, Burnout is clearly one that died after the last time they made a substantial investment.
Sekiro kinda does that, I guess. I mean, you get more stuff that actually happens to and around you then the standard FROM "Well, I got here and everything was already on fire" plot but with a ton of fascinating backstory to pick through. And while the backstory is often facinating, it's also really well hidden and occasionally stuff doesn't really fit together.
Reasonable expectations, but they matched mine. The only thing I was disappointed with was that the open world did get repetitive after a while, and they took out traffic checking. Don't know why you took out such a good mechanic there. I still don't know how I completed nearly all the events to get all of the licenses.
I was an early adopter, and I definitely didn't feel suckered in. I got more than enough enjoyment out of that game. I already knew it was not better than revenge, but I came back for more. I didn't get the DLC though. I was long done with the game by that point. Paradise didn't kill the franchise, EA themselves did. They couldn't look at the few mistakes that they made, and either improve upon them, nor get rid of what ddid not work. All they had to do was go to a more back to basics approach. Or go the way of Burnout Revenge again. But no, they put their fingers in their ears went "LALALA!" and couldn't comprehend where they messed up, even though the game did well. Rather than acknowledge their mistakes, they pretended nothing ever happened and moved on to something else. EA killed the franchise, because they don't want to put the effort to try again, and be better. That is what a publisher and developer should strive to be. Paradise is nothing more than a symptom, not the main problem.
Paradise sucked in your opinion. For me, it did not suck, but there were some minor disappointments. Overall, I still consider a good Burnout game. Warts and all. I'm glad they re-released the game, the revenge should have gotten the release or it should have been a double pack. People still enjoy what they were given with the re-release, so that tells you something.
Question. During the fight with big fat metal guy with giant hammer (Smaug?) and knight guy (I think his name is Orestein) you can beat either of them first and the fight changes depending on who's left. My question, why is it that I can't find a video of what it looks like if you kill fat guy first?
Functionally, because its harder to kill chubs before beanstalk. It is doable, its just that you have to skate around beanstalk the whole time to attack chubs, and then in doing so you sort of lock yourself into a more challenging fight against ultrabeanstalk instead of electrofatty. Also, unless you use pierce weapons a lot the reward isn't even that useful. I think that was what Orenstein's ring did at least, its been a while.
Here ya go.
This made me laugh more than it probably should have.
Smough: With your death, I shall gain the power of your lightning.
Semantics. If EA stopped making Burnout games because after Paradise's lukewarm reception, EA decided "they don't want to put the effort to try again but be better," fine: "EA" killed the franchise; you win.
Who said I or anyone else "won"? I don't consider that a win, just an infuriating truth. Do I sound happy about my argument?
These are semantics if history repeats itself. It happened again and again. Dead Space, Bad Company, Medal of Honor, Army of Two, and Dante's Inferno. Notice a pattern? Either a game, the franchise, or the latest game in a franchise suffered from similar problems or failed to meet abritrary expectations. The phrase "sold below expectations!" is constant, unnecessary occurrence in the AAA industry.
No, that belongs to Burnout Legends (DS version only) and Burnout: Crash. Playing those will make you wish for the lost Paradise.